Do you trust the media?

[copier addict]

Look, I'm being serious. You need to stop worrying about being judged by liberals. Or anyone else for that matter.


Let me give you an example. I've said more than once on this site that I don't believe in God. Do you think that is popular with conservatives and republicans? Hell no it's not. My family doesn't even like when I say it. Guess what, I don't care. That's what I believe. I don't go thru life worrying about how folks judge me.

Thanks for that. Now can we please get this thread back on topic. Your obsession with me can't be healthy.

[BillyCarpenter]

By the way...on why I support Trump. And I imagine Phil and Slim feel pretty much the same way. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I've sat back and watched president after president fuck things up. George Bush fucked it up. Obama came along it fucked it up even worse. We can go back even further....



Along comes Trump. An outsider. He didn't talk like a politician. He didn't act like a politician. He didn't give a fuck what he said or who liked it. He told the press to go fuck themselves. Likewise, he told the old guard of the republican party to go fuck themselves. And he told liberals to go fuck themselves.


I was still skeptical. I wanted to see that he was gonna do. His policies far exceeded my expectations. Results. Real fucking results.

When you talk about crazy, here's what's crazy to me:

- open borders
- All the transsexual bullshit
- Late term abortions.
- Supporting looting and rioting.
- Massive government handouts


That's some crazy shit to me.

[BillyCarpenter]

Thanks for that. Now can we please get this thread back on topic. Your obsession with me can't be healthy.

Right. I told you I didn't want to post all of that but you keep asking for it. Stop complaining after you get what you ask for.

[slimslob]

Thanks for that. Now can we please get this thread back on topic. Your obsession with me can't be healthy.

And do you really know exactly what the topic of this thread is/was? Since you are a Canadian who hates Trump I rather doubt it considering it was started by some one who likes Trump.

[SalesServiceGuy]

... so do you denounce this guy?



Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers. 55. A US Army veteran and disbarred lawyer.

[slimslob]

Also, I want to explain why Canadians don't believe in free speech. It's because they don't have free speech in Canada. In fact, a comedian has been brought before Canada's highest court for making a joke about a kid with a medical condition.


Read this:





Think Canada Allows Freedom of Speech? Think Again





This societal need to prosecute potty mouths and anything deemed offensive has become a popular trend in Canada. Most recently this has been transcended into anti-bullying laws introduced in legislatures all over the country.We have to be careful about legislating offensiveness. We cannot allow the government to decide what subjective comments are acceptable and which should land you in prison. Britain is taking steps to restore absolute freedom of speech, so should Canada.




On December 12, Lord Dear introduced a motion to reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 in the British House of Lords. Section 5 says that a person is guilty of an offence in Britain if he

"uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Essentially, it makes it illegal to insult anyone.

Reform Section 5, a campaign dedicated to removing the illegality of "insulting words or behaviour" from the law, has gotten a lot of attention in Britain with their slogan "Feel Free to Insult Me." They launched their mission after a man was arrested for asking a police officer, "do you realize your horse is gay?" A horse. While the officer himself admitted to not being insulted, he stated that the comment could have insulted anyone in the vicinity who heard it. Makes sense, right?

A teenager was later arrested for growling and woofing at two Labrador dogs in public, a café owner was investigated for showing biblical passages on a TV screen, and an LGBT group was arrested under section 5 for protesting anti-gay persecution in the Middle East. While one would hope such a law would only be used in extraordinary circumstances, it's actually very common. Between 2001 and 2003, 51,285 people were found guilty in court of having violated section 5, including 8,489 minors ranging from 10 to 17 years of age. Can you imagine a 10-year-old boy facing a judge having to explain why he broke the law and called his teacher stupid? Kids don't know the consequences of their actions and don't always think before they speak. Should they really be held to the same standards as adults?

Getting rid of this ludicrous legislation has attracted a lot of support, most notably from actor Rowan Atkinson. In a beautifully worded speech better heard than paraphrased, he describes the damage such a restriction of freedom of speech does to a society. He rightfully states that the solution to insults is not more legislation, but more insults. It's the only way to distinguish between truly hurtful acts and mere empty words. "If we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue and that must include the right to insult or to offend. Because, as someone once said, the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all."

That got me thinking: this would never happen in Canada, right?

Well it could.

Section 1 of the Constitution Act 1982 gives Canadians the right to free speech, but with "reasonable limits." This ensures that almost anything one says can be considered unconstitutional and subject to legal prosecution. You have a right to speak your mind, but be careful of what you say.

Then there's section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This prohibits the "communication of hate messages." Though a bill to repeal section 13 is currently passing through the Senate, Human Rights courts all over the country are littered with cases that are best characterized by an insane hypersensitivity to what other people have to say. Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code outlaws the willful promotion of hatred "against an identifiable group," and section 319.1 bans any incitements that "lead to a breach of peace."

All these terms -- reasonable limits, hate messages, breach of peace -- are subjective terms that are utilized by those who feel it is their duty to enforce political correctness and prosecute anyone who offends them. Yet we have to be careful about legislating offensiveness. Nothing anyone says in inherently offensive. It is not an objective matter. Rather, if someone is offended by anything, it is their own fault. The values they hold, the standards they live by, or the beliefs they hold dearly have been violated, but it was not necessarily the intention of the speaker and they are not necessarily communal values. What insults one person might not even be noticed by another.

Laws in a 21st century democratic nation are not meant to set a moral standard. We cannot allow the government to decide what subjective comments are acceptable and which should land you in prison. Laws are there to protect society by outlawing physical violence and crimes that leave long-term damage on the victims. An offensive word does not qualify by this standard. We might not like what we hear, but we can't censor the world based on quality and hurt feelings.

This societal need to prosecute potty mouths and anything deemed offensive has become a popular trend in Canada. Most recently this has been transcended into anti-bullying laws introduced in legislatures all over the country. Bullying, as most people can remember from high school, has always been around. Yet we are much more sensitive to it today. And while we can acknowledge that lawmakers have their hearts in the right place when they come up with these laws, we must be extremely vigilant of its effects.

Under new zero-tolerance anti-bullying laws, children could get expelled from school for saying something negative to one of their peers. Alberta's proposed Education Act will give schools the power to stalk students on Facebook for any comments that could be deemed a form of bullying, leading to suspensions and expulsion. They are instilling new laws that actively seek to find reasons to punish children instead of focusing on truly bad behaviour that leads to physical or psychological damage in a school's immediate jurisdiction. Instead, good behaviour should be enforced, encouraged, and kids should be taught how to be indifferent to verbal bullying and how to stand up to bad behaviour.

What kind of values are these new laws creating? It tells kids that any comment that one should normally brush off becomes a bullet, a hurtful statement that requires years of therapy to overcome. Kids will be so afraid to joke around with one another like normal children do that when someone does say something offensive, they'll have no social mechanism to deal with it. Instead of targeting real bullies, the new laws would put even the best of children who make occasional comportment mistakes on the defensive. If every child in school becomes responsible for every bad little word they've ever said, our schools would be empty.

Anti-bullying measures are popular now, but its true danger will be exposed the day you read Timmy with the straight A's was expelled from his elementary school for a single snide comment on the playground. Human Rights courts sound like a good idea in theory, until you hear the story of the mother who tried to ban acorns from her daughter's school because it "violated" her human rights. Or the prisoners convicted for murder and rape who sued the government because their human rights were violated -- proper barber services were not provided in their prison cells.

Wait no more.

First you said you'd date a tranny. When I later pointed that out, you told me that you were lying when you said that. It was at that point that I started to feel sorry for you. I'm not joking. I really felt compassion for you. Why? Because you're so worried about what people think of you that you'd lie about dating a tranny.

When I talk to you, I don't see a confident man. I see a scared man that can't say what he means out of fear of being judged by others. That's a terrible way to go thru life. Say what you mean, mean what you say and stop worrying about being judged by others.

I wonder if maybe he is afraid that jn admitting it he might actually be inviolation of Canada's no freedom of speech. In fact I have a feeling that a lot of what both the Canadians have posted on the political threads here on CTN could be illegal for them to post on a Canadian website.

[BillyCarpenter]

I wonder if maybe he is afraid that jn admitting it he might actually be inviolation of Canada's no freedom of speech. In fact I have a feeling that a lot of what both the Canadians have posted on the political threads here on CTN could be illegal for them to post on a Canadian website.

Freedom of Speech is truly an American institution. Other countries, including Canada, don't value Free Speech. Let me let a Canadian explain it:




Canada: Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Steacy was asked, “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” His response: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value … It’s not my job to give value to an American concept” (Levant, 2014).


The prevailing Canadian approach might be described as “freedom with responsibility.” Statute is officially viewed as a legitimate method for countering embedded racism and bigotry. Journalist Jonathan Kay argues: “Canada’s human-rights law is a product of the 1960s, when much of our society truly was shot through with bigotry and prejudice” (2012). Kay is referring to the Canadian Human Rights Act (Government of Canada, 2015c), which contains various anti-discrimination provisions, and included a section outlawing “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” until that particular section was repealed in 2012 by a Conservative government (apparently responding to public opinion which felt the law went too far). However, hate speech remains criminalized by The Criminal Code of Canada and provincial statues.

[bsm2]

Free speech does NOT include the overthrow of the United States Government.
Pretty simple

[skynet]

And do you really know exactly what the topic of this thread is/was? Since you are a Canadian who hates Trump I rather doubt it considering it was started by some one who likes Trump.

I had a feeling it would go towards mistrust but never thought it would be so high, I think a lot that have voted don't generally post in the off topic forum.

[BillyCarpenter]

Biden is about to take America right off the cliff and to our death. This is what the liberal agenda looks like. No joke.





Jason Rantz: Seattle on life support – here's why businesses and residents are fleeing



Plagued by surging violent crime and uncontrollable homelessness, Seattle business owners have had it. They are getting out of town before their employees or customers are seriously injured. Residents are following suit.
Seattleites are being chased by aggressive, mentally ill homeless people. Professionals are dodging human waste on sidewalks as they walk to business meetings. Antifa riots are still destroying storefronts, deadly overdoses are surging, and police are leaving the hamstrung department in historic numbers.
Seattle is on life support, while the mayor and City Council remain silent on the worsening crisis.



A rash of business closures have hit Seattle, threatening the city’s COVID recovery. In downtown Seattle alone, over 160 businesses have permanently closed their doors according to a new report. It’s created an office vacancy rate of 12% – a five-year high. While area activists blame COVID, the business people leaving are clear with their motivations.
"We had one female employee chased into a Starbucks," Megan Gluth-Bohan told a local TV station. "Business partners coming in for meetings were dodging human fecal matter and homeless people on the sidewalk... [An employee] had her driver's side window down working the parking machine, and someone attempted to enter her car."



luth-Bohan is the CEO of TR International, a global chemical distributor that has called Downtown Seattle its home for over two decades. They’re moving to Edmonds, Wash., about 15 minutes north. She’s not alone.
"These people, because they're poverty stricken or drug addicts or whatever you wanna call it, [city leaders] are allowing them to get away with whatever they want to do," Mason McDermott of Car Tender told me on my Seattle-based talk radio show.



He and his father grew tired of the city’s fringe politics, especially after their automotive repair shop was caught in the middle of the deadly Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, with radicals threatening to burn it to the ground if they didn’t do as they said. They moved their business 10 miles north to Shoreline, Wash.



Simply Seattle owner Jamie Munson closed his downtown location to focus on e-commerce. He reached his breaking point.
"A string of break-ins, bricks through our windows, people coming in just in broad daylight with big groups, taking armloads of gear," he complained. "Hard to operate and keep our staff safe at the same time."
These complaints aren’t new, but are growing louder as the city still reels from the Inauguration Day riot by Antifa agitators. The mob burned American flags, vandalized offices of ICE agents and the Federal Immigration Court, and destroyed the storefronts of businesses, including the original Starbucks at iconic Pike Place Market.
Downtown business groups released a joint statement demanding city politicians "immediately denounce these extremists. Public officials must send a strong message that assaults, hate speech and property crime aren’t welcome in Seattle and those who take part will be held accountable."