FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
24-06-2018, 09:45 AM | #1 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
http://www.barrelstrength.com/2017/1...mbukkana-obey/
I completely agree with Peterson on this - like most sane people who don’t support such enforced control over free speech, debate and communication - total backwards step for democracy! Rambukkana is a control freak, a bully and a complete tool! Sadly Canada is going way down hill in my estimation. Preventing hate crimes by effectively trying to control peoples’ right to free-speech and debate is pointless and will only cause more problems than it solves. You don’t change peoples’ thought processes through force - when will people learn! Very sinister development and one that will not prevail! Talk about a war of words! Last edited by Brillopad; 24-06-2018 at 09:56 AM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 10:02 AM | #2 | ||
|
|||
-
|
"The question is: is he right? Have entire lines of thought been criminalized in Canada by C-16?* The answer is no, not yet, but the practical effect of Bill C-16, which deals with gender identity and gender expression is already seen in the assertions of Professor Rambukkana."
From the article itself. So I do agree with what you're saying in principle Brillo, and I 100% agree that forcing people to change their speech can never and will never change their thoughts. It just puts a plug in them, causing the "pressure" of those thoughts to build and eventually explode. Free speech and open dialogue is the ONLY way forward. However, as per the above quote, it seems like in this case the problem is not entirely the bill itself or Canadian law, but more that one academic on a power-trip has misinterpreted the law... Either genuinely misunderstanding it, or deliberately pretending it means something else to use as an intimidation tactic (and knowing the managerial side of academia, it's sadly likely to be the latter). |
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 11:16 AM | #3 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
Quote:
Wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...night-leave-eu
__________________
Last edited by Kizzy; 24-06-2018 at 11:18 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 11:23 AM | #4 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
Quote:
The enforcement of such laws will likely have the opposite effect - and as I said lead to more problems than solved. You cannot force people into your way of thinking - legally or otherwise. |
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 11:28 AM | #5 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
The article in the OP seems hopelessly biased so I'm gonna go read up on this story from some varied sources to get a grasp of what it's about.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 11:33 AM | #6 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 11:57 AM | #7 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
Quote:
One email sent on the 13th of December states, ' Can we do a daily mail front page but also look at each tory MP rebel and see what we can find about them re expenses scandal and any other interests.' The head of social media strategy at Leave.EU then asked, ' Is saying there must be consequesses for their actions too menacing post- Jo Cox' He replies, 'No we need the push deselection by local branch target chairman etc let's discuss tomorrow' So there you have it you can force people to think what you want them to think, you get your media friends to put on the front page of a tabloid to be read at several million breakfast tables.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:11 PM | #8 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:23 PM | #9 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
Quote:
'Have entire lines of thought been criminalized in Canada by C-16? The answer is no' What is the point of this whole thing?... that C-16 might be misinterpreted by those who claim it does more than it says on the tin... or it has the potential to? Nah, I think what is clear here is that this is a hatchet job specifically targeting one Nathan Ramukkana, similarly it parallels the email I mentioned, there is someone we don't agree with... we must discredit them, this opinion piece attempts to do just that, and that alone.
__________________
Last edited by Kizzy; 24-06-2018 at 12:24 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:28 PM | #10 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:29 PM | #11 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
Which is a huge problem, yes, but a very different problem that goes on all the time. People try to scare people into (and out of) all sorts of things by lying about what is and isn't legal, and (very sadly) there are a lot of these people in high or middle positions within academics. Like to throw their weight around and do NOT like to be questioned, and will happily be dishonest in order to bully other staff and students into silence. These people don't belong in Universities, at all, but it's a problem everywhere. |
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:44 PM | #12 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
Quote:
The behaviour of the academics in that instance were questioned and no action taken, it has no bearing on C-16 or Mr Ramukkana in relation to their respective effectiveness. I'm not sure how you equate someones musings with a reputable news source but I'll leave it there.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:47 PM | #13 | |||
|
||||
Likes cars that go boom
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 12:57 PM | #14 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
Admittedly, of course, that's just personal opinion / suspicion. |
||
Reply With Quote |
24-06-2018, 01:10 PM | #15 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
From the Link 2016 clip Jordan at his University in Canada. At the start. Yes Jordan is right - No need for violence. Last edited by arista; 24-06-2018 at 01:15 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|