Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Hello, yes, LGBT person stuck in Texas here. Can I have their house please? I don’t really like the cold, but if it means I don’t have to feel scared about coming out of the closet then I could deal with it.
My comrad in crisis, no one in Canada can afford houses anymore. High chance they are just impoverished renters.
2/3 of Canadians own their own homes.
Hmm, that actually tracks with what I see in real life, but it’s pretty impressive. I guess that’s also why we have massive household debt.
We have massive household debt because we are livestock farmed for wealth by the plutocrats. They get us in debt early and keep us in debt our whole lives to that they can extract the maximum amount of interest from us until we die and our estates can be picked over for anything that’s left to pay our final debts.
You can look at it that way. They do advertise and play a lot of mind tricks. It’s also possible to be so poor you don’t even qualify to go into debt, though.
The plutocrats (as well as more moderately wealthy people) might argue that it’s always agreed to freely by the debtor, so it’s not their fault. I’d maintain free will doesn’t exist at a collective level, and they fucking know it. The entire concept of marketing is predicated on that.
Still more empty homes than homeless.
Source?
Not the quoted person but a quick research:
Apparently around 1.3 million homes were vacant in Canada (2021 data)
I couldn’t find anything more recent.
“Murtaza Haider is a professor of Real Estate Management at Ryerson University. Stephen Moranis is a real estate industry veteran.”
oh yes very unbiased people right here
Edit: Seriously though, after reading the article this doesn’t bust any myth at all. The only “source” cited is the census map and they don’t even take their time to transform that data into something that’s proving their point. That’s just a piece of opinion, it isn’t proving anything.
See I didn’t respond because I knew this is exactly what you were going to do. It’s always the same debate pervert internet sophistry.
Nobody ever asks for a source because they’re intellectually curious, it’s always just “this right wing source disagrees with your facts”
That isnt just Canada bud. The cost of housing in the US far out paces incomes. At least anywhere that people want to live or where there are jobs.
Removed by mod
A large percentage of homeless people are queer teens that were kicked out by their parents.
Nobody is affraid to come out anymore, this in isn’t 1950, spare us your drama.
Translation: I’m self-centered and arrogant enough to believe my personal experiences have taught me everything I need to know about the personal experiences of others.
You sound like a Republican.
Removed by mod
Fail on both moron
You know how to avoid having people call you an arrogant prick who believes only your own personal experiences are valid? Don’t say things that an arrogant prick who thought only their own personal experiences were valid would say.
And what do you mean fail on both? You sound like a Republican to me. That doesn’t mean you are one. It just means you seem like one, to me.
So far, you aren’t really changing my mind. You may not be one, but you definitely talk like one.
Are you queer?
Considering I have had people this YEAR at a place I worked calling trans people and drag queens groomers and pedophiles, it not being the 1950s doesn’t seem to fucking matter.
You need to be honest with yourself.
Hey guys I found the straight white cis guy who doesn’t believe he’s got privilege
deleted by creator
How can the government just overstep on Canadians’ first amendment rights? Don’t they know what the US founding fathers stood for? The right of Canadians to say whatever they want to whomever they want without fear of any consequences!!!1!
Yup. They live in the christofascist echo bunker which is dominated by US neo-fascist billionaires and have no idea what’s actually going on in the real world.
The first amendment you say? They’re still salty about the formation of Manitoba out of the Northwest Territory?
Isn’t everybody?
Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good. Some rejected the authority of the court altogether while others questioned if the judge herself had “something to hide.”
Funny how they think free speech is dead. I’m sure the there’s a pretty decent overlap between these idiots and the people standing in front of Town Halls and region headquarters whining about vaccines, kickdowns, and Trudeau with 0 repercussions.
These dumb fucks need to stop crying about “free speech” and start crying about what it is they really want - the ability to be degenerates and knuckle draggers without any repercussions.
I openly invite all these morons to leave Canada for good. We don’t want them. Nobody wants them. Go! Move to Antarctica where maybe the penguins will put up with your dipshittery. Maybe we can set up a GoFundMe to help them afford the travel cost out of here.
When the right wing says, “free speech” they actually mean, “hate speech without repercussions”. Free speech is a right wing dog whistle.
Yeah, these are the same people that want to ban books and have tight control over which true things are taught in schools.
Penguins and seals down there aren’t gonna put up with their shit either.
The poor penguins.
This is Canada, they have different laws around protected free speech. People don’t realize that the US is basically the only country that has these super broad free speech laws written into the constition.
This is illegal in the US too (defamation per se). The main difference is that the US requires a higher standard for public figures (proving actual malice i.e. that they lied knowingly and maliciously).
Fwiw “actual malice” doesn’t require…actual malice. It just requires knowing the statement was false, or with reckless disregard for the veracity.
The Constitution does not apply between interactions between private citizens. The Constitution only applies between the State and the Public.
deleted by creator
Broad as defined by the standard around the world.
“A violent activist SCOTUS”
You heard it here folks… Washington DC is terrorised by the John Roberts gang.
Are you literally so stupid as to think that leftists (especially the ones that argue for violence) don’t also benefit from broad free speech protections?
deleted by creator
“They are violent and should be met with equal violence, including removal imprisonment and financial liability”.
You complain that leftists are denied freedom of speech protections, and then immediately use that legal protection to call for violence.
“Unchecked power against the American people”
You know SCOTUS simply decides what rules are allowed, they don’t actually create them, that’s the legislatures.
Do you really just want violent revolution so badly that you don’t care about reality?
Technically Canada (and most other Liberal democracies) have similar freedom of expression (which includes speech). Where the difference lies between Canada and the US is in the Canadian Charter of Rights’ structure vs. the US Constitution’s structure.
In the US, “Freedom of Speech” is the first amendment, and as such (as I understand it) stands largely on it’s own as an enumerated right. Unless it intersects with another Constitutional provision, or with the interpretation of the text of the first amendment itself, it’s otherwise unlimited.
In Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided for in Section 2 of the Charter, but Section 1 provides for the limitation of any of the following rights and freedoms:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but the legal framework for testing Section 1 laws is call the Oakes test, and the language in this article bears the hallmark of justifications of the application of Section 1:
In its decision, the court found Webster’s statements failed a basic “public interest” test since “perpetuating hurtful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members in our society” does not represent speech anti-SLAPP rules are “intended to protect."
I would assume that since this was an attempt to dismiss a lawsuit using Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law, that the motion to dismiss was overruled because the anti-SLAPP laws were in line with promoting a Free and Democratic society.
Also there is Section 33, the “notwithstanding clause”, which allows for the temporary suspension on just about any of the rights by the legislature, but that’s not relevant here, ans is fairly rarely used (except in Quebec).
Good. Every time they bs without evidence, it: Destroys the credibility of legitimate claims & can cause serious reputation and mental harm to the accused. Should be criminal
That’s part of the point, yup.
lamenting the death of free speech
Its amazing how ignorant they are to the fact it’s always* been like this
* since the Bill of Rights
Oh! So I can’t go into a post-op ward in a white lab coat and tell the recovering patients that the power of prayer is better than surgery?!
What’s next?! Taking away my Professional Engineer certification just because I’m not an engineer?
Or maybe you want to bankrupt my architecture firm simply because my certifications double as my Colgate Cavity Patrol diploma!
Never forget: If you can’t commit outright fraud with your free speech, is it really free?
/s
What’s next?! Taking away my Professional Engineer certification just because I’m not an engineer?
You don’t need /s because this is something they are pissed about
Bill of Rights?
Huh. That’s an old one. Thanks.
LoL. Did you not know about this or something?
I actually didn’t know about the Canadian Bill of Rights. I’ve always focused on the Constitution and Charter since they are current and applicable nationally. I guess that since it was superseded I just didn’t know about it.
Gotta love Canadians that think they are ruled by American laws. Every Canadian should know slander and libel laws here are much more restrictive on speech.
about as inspiring as Canadians that WANT to be ruled by American laws.
This seems to be the whole point of the Conservative Party these days. Wannabe US Republicans.
They may be shitty but they have a long way to go to be GQP shitty.
Agreed. It’s creeping in but they’re still just the party of rich people who want less taxes in large part.
Defamation isn’t protected under US laws either. It might not be super well enforced, especially on the internet, but that’s also not really exclusive to the US. A lot of countries are just now really getting into the legalities of what happens on the internet, for better or worse in certain cases. But generally speaking, laws also apply to what you say online of course.
There is a fundamental difference in the way defamation is treated in Canada(and other Common law countries like the UK and Australia) and the US. This is a simplification, but basically in the US you generally need to prove that the statement was knowingly false (in addition to other defamation requirements like proving damages). This is nearly impossible to do in most situations. In Common law the person who said the statement needs to prove they had a reasonable justification for thinking the statement true. This reverses who the onus of proof is on and makes winning defamation cases in Canada actually plausible.
Not to mention gun rights in Canada…of which there are none.
They used to have a much better grasp on this sort of thing. “Is so-and-so a groomer? I don’t know, but people have been saying. I’m just asking questions…” and so forth. Couching your bs accusations in uncertain language to protect you from the libel lawsuit you clearly deserve. I guess it’s good they seem to be forgetting about that tool more frequently.
They’re being groomed into a mob. It’s mass psyops in preparation for next years election cycle. An agitated mob doesn’t happen over night.
We’ve reached the tipping point. Fascism is on the rise globally and they have broken cover and are running to try to grab the prize. They need to be stopped.
100% agreed.
They were just exercising their right to Manitoba.
Alberskatchetoba?
I was making a joke about the first amendment.
In the US Constitution, the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, and this was cited by many convoyers for instance.
The first amendment to the Canadian Constitution allowed for the admission of Manitoba as a Province.
I forgot about that so I missed the reference. Sorry.
they should all move to Russia, where they will be much more free to say what they like about groomers
It’s likely many of them already are operating out of St. Petersburg.
They can freak out all they like. Often someone who is trans will be called a groomer for no reason.
It’s actually an antisemitic trope repurposed to attack the LGBT* community.
Not for no reason the reason is the same with all conservative ( or Far-Right kinda the same thing) canadian or otherwise and that reason is Projection they do what they say other people do
Is there anywhere in tge world that isnt infected by fascism?
They have certainly gotten themselves organized. Once they realized that our system only functions because of the good faith of the participants and that they could lie and cheat and steal with no consequences they quickly began to take over.
Like cancer cells in your blood stream, the internet has made fascist mindsets easily dumped in little corners throughout the world
How is calling someone a groomer related to fascism? Or is it just more of a correlation thing?
they’re not “calling someone a groomer”, they’re specifically calling LGBT people groomers. as in all of them. even if accusing a single person of being a groomer, you need evidence. this is a coordinated hate campaign intended to whip people into a frenzy about a “threat from within taking over our great country”. it’s fascism.
Hmm, well I’m not sure I agree that there is a big conspiracy or campaign, but I understand the logic.
They can go back to America where they’ll be left destitute and homeless by their many fascist institutions (all of which they supported)
Removed by mod
Those throwing around the word are almost certainly projecting. Every accusation is an admission.
I like this reasoning!
That’s why every man upset at being called a rapist is likely a rapist!
Sounds like something a groomer would say
Please don’t take the bait!!!
This is left wing bait so that you support a privacy destroying censorship bill.
It’s the same as “won’t somebody please think of the children”
I’m all for pride and everything, but this is political bullshite to try and convince you that you don’t need privacy online.
DON’T TAKE THE BAIT!
This isn’t bait, this is accurate reporting of a decision by a Canadian court. Reality can be scary when you step out of the echo bunker.
Yep, right on the heels of a bill to try and censor the internet again.
While I agree with the outcome of the case, we must remain vigilant of our privacy.
Do you even have the first clue what you’re talking about or are you just spouting right wing talking points? Censoring the internet (banning hate speech as it is known outside of the right wing echo bunker) has nothing to do with privacy. Calm down, give yourself a bit of time to adjust. You will find that reality is FAR less scary than the right wing echo bunker would have you believe.
Trust me, I’m not right wing.
PP is a fucking shill and would be a disaster.
But privacy matters, and the only way to “censor hate speech” online in the way they describe would be an unimaginable loss to privacy.
And you won’t see that until it happens.
Everyone was ecstatic that Apple created a “child porn filter” on your phone, and in theory it’s great, but then all of a sudden governments wanted to use the tool to censor images that they didn’t like.
……and Apple quietly dropped the feature.
It’s rage bait to get you to support something that is bad for you.
Trust me
Uh…no…I don’t think I will.
Ahhh, lovely retort.
But you don’t address any of my criticisms.
Have a nice day.
No one is under any obligation to engage with you on your nonsense. Sorry.
Have a nice day.
This is left wing bait so that you support a privacy destroying censorship bill.
It’s a violation of my privacy that I can’t go around defaming people 😤 😤 😤
Ahhh the straw man argument.
We both know I didn’t say that, but as you’ve taken to arguing the point in bad faith, I’m not going to fight you.
Have a nice day.
Straw man? This is literally about people being charged for defamation lmao
Sure, but that’s not what I said at all.
People get charged with defamation every day….
Why make a big fuss out of it? Why big news stories?
What makes this one special?
Oh, right, they’re trying to push a censorship bill that forces companies to allow the government to audit your communications.
This is the 4th time they’ve done the same thing, and I need people to realize that while this case was an absolutely correct ruling, using the EXISTING infrastructure and legal framework to prosecute, we don’t need new tools to destroy privacy.
Privacy matters.
So people should be free to break laws so long as they do it anonymously?
I was asking why they bothered with the big news story on this particular case of defamation, not suggesting they the behaviour was okay…???
Did you reply to the wrong thread, or was there a misunderstanding of my comment?
It’s clearly you who is lost, because you seem unfamiliar with the details of what’s being discussed in this thread.
- People post anonymous defamatory comments online
- Defamation is a crime in Canada, so they get charged for it
- They are astonished to discover that breaking the law has consequences
- You come in here commenting that this is a violation of their privacy, as though privacy were some kind of get out of jail free card
To identify the defendant, Judson obtained court orders requiring Meta and Bell to produce subscriber information and IP addresses linking the anonymous Facebook page to Webster.
How is that anything to do with a privacy destroying censorship bill?
That is the current process and it works just fine. I’m good with what happened in this case.
But the news is choosing to cover these stories right now in order to build support for the privacy invading bill that they want to pass.
They’ve tried like 4 times.
This is how the narrative starts, with something very “reasonable”
Next they’ll ask for better tools to combat the epidemic of it.
But just to clarify they aren’t asking for better tools to combat the epidemic of it yet, that’s just something you’ve invented out of whole cloth and are now getting mad about it?
https://globalnews.ca/news/10178476/liberals-online-harms-bill-not-regulating-speech/
What’s this? An article that literally came out last night detailing some of the issues?
Here’s the rest of your cloth.
This is their 4th try at the same thing, that’s why I knew where this would go.
There’s the beginning of the ask.
Privacy matters.
Last year, the government sent its initial plans for the bill back to the drawing board in after facing criticism. Virani now says he hopes to bring the final bill forward sometime next year. He is taking over the bill from Canadian Heritage, which shepherded two highly controversial media bills on online streaming and compensation for news media.
The group of experts the government tasked with reworking the bill recently published an open letter saying it was time for the Liberals to bring it forward. They said Canadian children are less protected than kids in countries where similar laws are already in effect.
Sounds like people had concerns so they got a group of experts in to rework the previous bill.
Is that an issue to you because it looks to me like it is the opposite of what you just explained.
Because of significant backlash, they were forced to abandon the efforts.
The “experts” just reworded the same problems. The issues still exist in the bill. In fact the bill itself is the issue. They were able to change the guy in the article on this post, why didn’t they need the “new law” for that?? Which countries have this law? They didn’t mention?
Curious.
The root of the problem is that the proposed law itself requires the government to be able to see/audit all your online communication. That hasn’t changed. They make their intentions in “look at this awful case”, but they ignore that the new law wasn’t required for that case, so then what’s the reason for needing the new law? Why did privacy ever matter? Wouldn’t they find more murders if they had cameras in everyone’s house?
Yes, that argument is extreme, but it’s intended to make you think about “if” and “why” privacy matters.
I said this was coming, you called me out for not having any sources and I gave you sources.
I worry that nothing I could say or prove would change your mind.
What does cameras in people’s house have to do with the current conversation?
It sounds like fear mongering to me. I find it’s easier to keep track of a subject if you stay on topic.
deleted by creator
You’re missing the point.
They will show you reasonable cases right now to show that “broad censorship is needed” to help combat it.
Next there will be articles on how they need better tooling to prevent the epidemic of it.
This is their 4th try at it by my count.
deleted by creator
I see it. At this point, the pros just outweigh the cons
