Why do Americans consider Canada to be a left wing country?

Post Reply New Topic

In Canada hate crimes and bias crimes (yes, a real thing) against person or property are there to curb/punish public displays (speeches, video, publications), unfair employment practices, charges where actual damages are small so limited recovery (graffitti), actual assault with stiffer penalties, etc. What we say in a private conversation does NOT count as crime. The thing that makes private views so explosive is social media where, if it gets out, you can be judged by many and suffer real consequences. Hate crimes are investigated but charges are rarely filed.

I'm very glad we have these laws. I admit sometimes they can be frivolous but usually they are legit. Nobody should have to look over their shoulder, and nobody should be allowed to promote an ideology that puts people down.

Public expressions should be allowed too. Galileo went public, and we all agree it was a mistake to suppress his public speech.



Thats a different subject. Whom do you employ has nothing to do with what ideology you express. Its entirely possible to make lots of racist publications while, at the same time, employing candidates of all races and backgrounds. The law should be "express whatever you want to express as long as you DO the right thing". For example, in the course I was a TA for last semester, I disagree with the way the course was set up, but I went along with it because I was a TA, not a professor, so I had to listen to the way the professor set it up. Now, suppose I were to write a publication in an education journal on how that course was horrible. I don't think I would get into trouble for it. As long as my *actual* teaching didn't deviate from what professor said thats all that mattered. Well, from my point of view, racism should be treated similarly. Public expression of racism should be allowed, as long as the person making these expressions doesn't actually descriminate in practice.



Well, graffiti is not just an expression, its vandalism. So thats also a different subject. Even if you write something really nice in a graffiti, you would still be fined for vandalism. So all graffiti should receive the same fine, regardless of its content.



Again, thats a different subject.



So you first say you can have private conversation without consequences and then turned around to say that you aren't. Well, the second part of the sentence I just quoted is one of the reasons I disagree with Canadian law.



Nice to hear its rare, but the fact that they are filed at all is a problem. And also the fact that they are investigated is a problem too: schools and jobs not only ask if you were in jail but they also ask if you were in court, so if you were, it can damage your career.



People should be allowed to promote whatever ideology that they have. Just because physics was used for atomic bomb doesn't mean that physics is wrong or that physicists should have been stopped. Similarly, just the fact that a "theory" that blacks have lower IQ can be "used" to justify discrimination doesn't mean that this theory -- in and of itself -- should be banned. Banning it would amount to saying "the fact that an idea of blacks having lower IQ is used for discremination is an EVIDENCE that they have average or above IQ". Now see how silly the word "evidence" sound? And by the way -- before anyone jumps at me -- I didn't say they have lower IQ (just like I didn't say they don't). I am just saying that we have to be open to both possibilities and be allowed to investigate -- and publish papers on it -- without fear of prosecution.

A black person, raised in a similar environment to a white person, will more than likely be quite similar to that white person. I’ve seen this countless times.

A white person raised in the ghetto, and embracing the ghetto, will come out like a black person who was raised in the ghetto and embraced the ghetto.

There is evidence in both direction depending on your sources. But, for the sake of the argument, suppose what you said was true. That doesn't mean that people that disagree should go to jail for it. Thats the main point I am trying to make: people shouldn't be arrested for expressing the views, even if those views happen to be wrong.

They shouldn’t go to jail—but they should be criticized, and they should be proven wrong.

If you think black people have lower IQs, you haven’t hung out with too many black people.

It is well known that IQ tests have a cultural bias, in favor of people raised in a middle class/upper class milieu.

Well, in Canada they "might" go to jail. So if you agree with me that they shouldn't, then you agree that Canadian law is undair.

As far as being criticized, I agree with you: anybody should be allowed to criticize anybody, that's what free speech is about.

And that's one of the reasons people shouldn't be arrested for views. If you are so sure they are wrong, well, then prove them wrong through the debate. What are you afraid of? If you are wanting to arrest them then you are basically admitting your inability to stand scrutiny.

I don’t believe people should be arrested merely for stating a viewpoint.

Can you cite an instance where that's happened or are you maybe exaggerating?

Zundel went to jail for questioning the Holocaust.

As far as IQ and intelligence, I can't think of any examples but I would guess that they might, since it's the same concept: publishing something that some people deem to be hateful.

I'm not sure you understand the case you're referring to very well.

He was imprisoned and upon appeal he was freed and Canadian legal precedent was changed as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Zundel

As for being deported to Germany, he wasn't a citizen and was a persona non grata based on his crimes, Canada had no reason to interfere with Germany prosecuting a German citizen for a crime that Germany feels should be taken seriously.

Yeah I am all for charges against vandalism and things like that but voices an opinion, even if it's a negative opinion, just seems strange to use that the law would want to make that illegal. But there are people wanting speech to be illegal if it's hate speech.

Better healthcare, no one would have to worry about that medical bill they cannot afford.

Laws to protect transgender people.

Gay people can get married.



Funny enough the right wing see it as their rights and freedom being restricted when the left try to get better health care, stricter gun laws, and laws to protect the LGBT and want to help the unlucky people who are not able to get out of being poor and they want college to be affordable so more people will be successful and not stay poor.

Gun control law is about restricting guns to those who can't have them. If you have a history of violence and abuse and have a history of being suicidal, should you be allowed to have a gun? Look at the school shootings we get.

As for restricting speech, are you okay with racism? Are you okay with people harassing LGBT people and those who are people of color?

People are just standing up for those who are in the minority like people of color, those with disabilities, those who are gay or trans. They want them to have human rights but the conservatives feel they are being restricted and having their rights taken, what rights lol? Rights to discriminating them? Rights to say racist and bigoted things? I am all in favor of these rights being taken away. I am meh about it. I've lived my whole life not doing any of these things so it can be done. You can live without being racist, without being a bigot. I pity anyone who feels they can't live their life without this stuff lol.

Some people are a mixture of both. Like someone can have liberal and conservative views. For example, someone can believe in abortion and be for no gun control but yet still want national healthcare and better education.

The problem is Americans just want to put people into political boxes. We tend to be pretty bias.

Its interesting how in one sentence you said how we should discriminate as to who can't have a gun and then in the next sentence you said that discirmination is bad.

Here is what concerns me. Even though there were the few cases of shooting, the point is that not all mentally ill people are like that. So if you prohibit "all" mentally ill people from having a gun, this would be discrimination.

Here is something even more relevant to this thread. Do you think people with Asperger are allowed to have a gun? Thats an honest question because I actually don't know the answer. *IF* the answer happens to be no, then I would *either* want to go right and allow everyone to have a gun *or* go left and forbid everyone from having a gun. I don't care which way it is, I just don't want to feel inferior in a situation where others can have a gun and I can't.

what all this gun talk fails to mention, is how people feel about actually SHOOTING and injuring/maiming/killing another sentient being. not like smashing a bug [except for some sociopaths], but extinguishing or severely interfering with somebody else's life. people take that responsibility far too lightly in my book. a person with a gun should absolutely DREAD having to use it on somebody else. a lot of the gun people i see are the opposite, they seem to relish the opportunity to ventilate somebody.