just read about Brad Love who was gaoled at the behest of the Canadian Human Rights Commission ( a sort of Stalinist star chamber doing well in Canada as we speak) for simply expressing his opinion about immigration
pretty soon they will inaugurate a Ministry of Truth whose r
task will be to disseminate and enforce government propaganda - God help those who would deny it
the new age government has set up the latter day Stalinist quangos with flowerey names ( the name is opposite in action to what it advertises) basically the employees are commissars there to implement the new age horror on to a dreamy popuoation that sucks on Dr Phil and Oprah
@St37 if you dont have anti-discrimination laws you cant have a democracy. A democracy without such laws, is a dictatorship by definition.
There are also boundaries. That Canadian priest that discriminated against homosexuals (and was ruled as hatespeech as it incited violence) and a boy killed himself as a result of it, is a good example of a boundary. Inciting violence (against a group of people) is the boundary. If your POV incites violence, then there is the boundary.
@sommersonset, the implications burried in your last comment lead in too many different directions, so for the sake of brevity I will try to stick only to what you did explicitly say, though I am sure that this could become a very long discussion.
Firstly, no one is arguing that we should not have any laws that prohibit certain forms of discrimination. Absolute rule by a majority without legal protection for individuals and/or minorities would revert towards populism, oppression, and demagogy.
To confuse rule by majority, or mob rule, with dictatorship is to destroy the meaning of the term dictatorship which means exactly what it means and nothing else. Please look up dictatorship, and remember that neither Ezra, nor I, desires a society where the law fails to respect the civil rights of individuals, including free speech, regardless of the opinion or sensibility of the majority.
As for boundaries on free speech, you should know from the video that Ezra plainly concedes the obvious limits on free speech. We should outlaw fraud, purgery, death threats, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc. However, none of these utterances are in any way made unlawful by virtue of their place on the political spectrum, or status in the zeitgeist. Your proposal to limit any speech that incites violence against any group is conspicuously ad-hoc in many respects, and invites corruption.
I wonder why you don't find it excessive to propose that either of us should be held responsible for whatever vigilantism, murder, suicide, or other foolishness that we might inspire. Rather, isn't it sufficient that those fools themselves be held responsible for their own actions? This is in stark contrast to a situation where a preacher or leader knowingly conspires in and/or directs any criminal activity. I find this a good way to draw the necessary line between argumentation and action.
Finally, when you say that the preacher discriminated against homosexuals, this is quite literally false. Though I am interested to know exactly how you go about distorting the meanings of words in order to make it "true".
So please tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that he "discriminated" and what this has to do with "incitement to violence" or with free speech.
There is a private member's bill about the HRTs going through the process right now. I have been in contact with my MP and provided my stand for Free Speech and demanded he give me his position on the subject.
this is how the Security and Prosperity Partnership will be instituted. It will be touted as "in the best interests of Canadians" and while the Parliament of chimps screeches and throws feces at each other across the floor, it will all just sort of go through and Canadians won't blink because if they do it means they lose their chunk of the US border $5 billion a day in trade. Problem is they wont have jobs with the cheap labour flooding in through Mexico and China. Disaster will ensue.
Canada is a socialist country. No question. NoSpeak and the thought-Police exist here. He is correct in that if the government here points a finger at you for anything you will be summarily found guilty without trial and fined or even imprisoned indefinitely to await a mock trial. The corporate groups are the overseers of the communization of sleepy Canadian culture to ensure the coming population expansion forced on the Canadian public will be instituted with as little fuss as possible.
Human Rights Commissions are appropriately named. Since "Human Rights" is the target which they attack, putting them out of commission. Hate exists! Therefor, it has a rightful place. Alberta's Human Rights Commissions provide an excellent example of the kinds of ideologies, policies & acts to which one should rightfully direct his hatred. Hatred begets anger which can motivate! Hatred of wrongfulness begets anger that motivates people like Ezra Levant to correct that wrongfulness
Out of control bureaucracy, infused by radical activists, subversively injected by Loserferian Marxists, acting beneath the radar of public scrutiny. Indeed, those are precisely the kind of people that employ the "weapon of subjectivity", AKA Psychology! Their deified & revered "professional opinion" trumps citizens protective laws that stand in the way of the 1984 totalitarian tyrants. They impudently use subjective "science" with impunity. Their preposterously punitive predeterminism can leave
one impoverished & imperiled. Armed with a much greater ability to destroy minds, whether in actuality or by illusion" than to correct those of their criminal colleagues. Once a targeted, sound individual with highly undesirable opposing views has been ensnared, its not long before the surrounding public begins to say, "oh yea, I see their opinion now". Not realizing they actually see the opinionated themselves through their own handy dirty work. Perhaps, many have excusable intentions? But even
a crazy retard should see the kind of destruction that would result from entwining judicial authority with the delusions of those applying the rigidly scientific method of subjectively voting or opining the objective empiricism into existence. Beware the immaterial culprits that can at any moment cause the immaterial of you to be stricken with the invention from a Motherf@%$#&s mind
just read about Brad Love who was gaoled at the behest of the Canadian Human Rights Commission ( a sort of Stalinist star chamber doing well in Canada as we speak) for simply expressing his opinion about immigration
pretty soon they will inaugurate a Ministry of Truth whose r
task will be to disseminate and enforce government propaganda - God help those who would deny it
shazam20007 1 year ago
it's all bOut POWER OverpOwering Humans...
They wanna give humans a chip and completely make them slaves.
CheckinGagaiNagain 1 year ago
the new age government has set up the latter day Stalinist quangos with flowerey names ( the name is opposite in action to what it advertises) basically the employees are commissars there to implement the new age horror on to a dreamy popuoation that sucks on Dr Phil and Oprah
shazam20007 1 year ago
@shazam20007
Agreed,that's what they want.
CheckinGagaiNagain 1 year ago
2 + 2 = 5. I guess this kind of acceptance works when under extreme duress from the Ministry of Love.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
@wrdeboise
Check videO:
Bisphenol A (BPA) Contaminating Our Food
CheckinGagaiNagain 1 year ago
Well, discriminating is not a human right and free speech is not absolute, not any freedom is.
summersonset 2 years ago
Okay summersonset, so how does "discrimination" relate to freedom of speech?
Do you actually believe that a POV can be "discriminatory"?
You say that free speech IS not absolute.
But when it comes to political or philosophical ideas, there SHOULD not be any censorship of unfashionable, offensive, or otherwise unpopular ideas.
Who should determine what speech or whos speech is too harmful to be tolerated? Who should protect you from hearing what you might have to hear?
St37One 2 years ago
@St37 if you dont have anti-discrimination laws you cant have a democracy. A democracy without such laws, is a dictatorship by definition.
There are also boundaries. That Canadian priest that discriminated against homosexuals (and was ruled as hatespeech as it incited violence) and a boy killed himself as a result of it, is a good example of a boundary. Inciting violence (against a group of people) is the boundary. If your POV incites violence, then there is the boundary.
summersonset 2 years ago
@sommersonset, the implications burried in your last comment lead in too many different directions, so for the sake of brevity I will try to stick only to what you did explicitly say, though I am sure that this could become a very long discussion.
Firstly, no one is arguing that we should not have any laws that prohibit certain forms of discrimination. Absolute rule by a majority without legal protection for individuals and/or minorities would revert towards populism, oppression, and demagogy.
St37One 2 years ago
To confuse rule by majority, or mob rule, with dictatorship is to destroy the meaning of the term dictatorship which means exactly what it means and nothing else. Please look up dictatorship, and remember that neither Ezra, nor I, desires a society where the law fails to respect the civil rights of individuals, including free speech, regardless of the opinion or sensibility of the majority.
St37One 2 years ago
As for boundaries on free speech, you should know from the video that Ezra plainly concedes the obvious limits on free speech. We should outlaw fraud, purgery, death threats, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc. However, none of these utterances are in any way made unlawful by virtue of their place on the political spectrum, or status in the zeitgeist. Your proposal to limit any speech that incites violence against any group is conspicuously ad-hoc in many respects, and invites corruption.
St37One 2 years ago
I wonder why you don't find it excessive to propose that either of us should be held responsible for whatever vigilantism, murder, suicide, or other foolishness that we might inspire. Rather, isn't it sufficient that those fools themselves be held responsible for their own actions? This is in stark contrast to a situation where a preacher or leader knowingly conspires in and/or directs any criminal activity. I find this a good way to draw the necessary line between argumentation and action.
St37One 2 years ago
Finally, when you say that the preacher discriminated against homosexuals, this is quite literally false. Though I am interested to know exactly how you go about distorting the meanings of words in order to make it "true".
So please tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that he "discriminated" and what this has to do with "incitement to violence" or with free speech.
St37One 2 years ago
There is a private member's bill about the HRTs going through the process right now. I have been in contact with my MP and provided my stand for Free Speech and demanded he give me his position on the subject.
I suggest that all Canadians do the same.
Delete section 13.1!
Prytanus 2 years ago 3
this is how the Security and Prosperity Partnership will be instituted. It will be touted as "in the best interests of Canadians" and while the Parliament of chimps screeches and throws feces at each other across the floor, it will all just sort of go through and Canadians won't blink because if they do it means they lose their chunk of the US border $5 billion a day in trade. Problem is they wont have jobs with the cheap labour flooding in through Mexico and China. Disaster will ensue.
UBER069 2 years ago 3
Canada is a socialist country. No question. NoSpeak and the thought-Police exist here. He is correct in that if the government here points a finger at you for anything you will be summarily found guilty without trial and fined or even imprisoned indefinitely to await a mock trial. The corporate groups are the overseers of the communization of sleepy Canadian culture to ensure the coming population expansion forced on the Canadian public will be instituted with as little fuss as possible.
UBER069 2 years ago 2
Human Rights Commissions are appropriately named. Since "Human Rights" is the target which they attack, putting them out of commission. Hate exists! Therefor, it has a rightful place. Alberta's Human Rights Commissions provide an excellent example of the kinds of ideologies, policies & acts to which one should rightfully direct his hatred. Hatred begets anger which can motivate! Hatred of wrongfulness begets anger that motivates people like Ezra Levant to correct that wrongfulness
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Out of control bureaucracy, infused by radical activists, subversively injected by Loserferian Marxists, acting beneath the radar of public scrutiny. Indeed, those are precisely the kind of people that employ the "weapon of subjectivity", AKA Psychology! Their deified & revered "professional opinion" trumps citizens protective laws that stand in the way of the 1984 totalitarian tyrants. They impudently use subjective "science" with impunity. Their preposterously punitive predeterminism can leave
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
one impoverished & imperiled. Armed with a much greater ability to destroy minds, whether in actuality or by illusion" than to correct those of their criminal colleagues. Once a targeted, sound individual with highly undesirable opposing views has been ensnared, its not long before the surrounding public begins to say, "oh yea, I see their opinion now". Not realizing they actually see the opinionated themselves through their own handy dirty work. Perhaps, many have excusable intentions? But even
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
a crazy retard should see the kind of destruction that would result from entwining judicial authority with the delusions of those applying the rigidly scientific method of subjectively voting or opining the objective empiricism into existence. Beware the immaterial culprits that can at any moment cause the immaterial of you to be stricken with the invention from a Motherf@%$#&s mind
Guaranteed to be effective, as tested on animals!
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Good video, thanks
ORVX 2 years ago 4
Don't mention it.
Just pass it on please.
St37One 2 years ago
BTW. some nit wit marked your comment as "spam."
Probably just somebody who sympathizes with the totalitarian censors LOL.
St37One 2 years ago