[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

THat’s not forcing, that’s encouraging. Hardly the same as creating laws that try to change thought processes by threats of criminal punishment. They are a world apart on both the effectiveness and morality charts.

As does the 'blog' you have in the OP.

'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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

As does the 'blog' you have in the OP.

'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.

This opinion piece was based on the fact the Bill exists and all that that entails and the bullying behaviour of Ramukkana to that teaching assistant and in general. I picked that particular article because I agreed with its stance just as you do when you present many a Guardian article as reference.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

This opinion piece was based on the fact the Bill exists and all that that entails and the bullying behaviour of Ramukkana to that teaching assistant and in general. I picked that particular article because I agreed with its stance just as you do when you present many a Guardian article as reference.

Yes it's a fact the bill exists... the opinion of what that means re free speech is a fabrication.
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.