all 26 comments

[–][deleted]  (28 children)

[deleted]

    [–]HiddenFox 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

    Great write up of the facts. Thank you.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    You're welcome!

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    u/d3rr, headers ain't displaying correctly for some reason.

    Edit: I found a work-around.

    [–]d3rrConstitution Party 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

    Who did that and why?

    u/AXXA, do you know what's going on?

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      That's what I suspected. Was the problem really that bad? (I've been out of the loop lately)

      [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      No, it wasn't that bad. It's a bullshit excuse.

      [–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

      He was obviously imprisoned solely for offending the politically correct judge by using female pronouns.

      I'm not sure that that's a jailable offence.

      The vancouver sun articles say that he was jailed for contempt of court after repeatedly violating the court order not to identify his wife, child and healthcare providers.

      This makes more sense, since you can get jailed for contempt of court.

      [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      I'm not sure that that's a jailable offence.

      It is in Canada, whether they've done so or not - so far. They passed the stupid law for a reason.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      They passed the stupid law for a reason.

      The "stupid" law being C-16?

      The adding of "gender identity or expression" to identifiable groups protected from discrimination, to identifiable groups that can be the target of hate speech, and to the criminal code allowing a judge to consider hate crimes against them when sentencing?

      How is that stupid? The exact same law protects other groups without causing a breakdown in society.

      [–]wristaction 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      ...without causing a breakdown in society.

      I mean, if we outright banned leftist parties, that wouldn't cause a breakdown in society. We ought to try it.

      [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

      We have laws for bullying, harassment, and crimes. Use those.

      All laws that are to suppress "hate" are political bullshit, just as "equality" is bullshit when all everyone wants is consistent fairness.

      People can commit of crimes for all kinds of motivational reasons, including human emotions like love and hate - but we can never read other people's minds.

      If someone robs an old Black lesbian they may do it for hate or simply because she's an easy target. Nail them for the crime, not the motive or whatever bullshit politicians want to skew it with.

      The exact same law protects other groups without causing a breakdown in society.

      Proof?

      Now who's being stupid?

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      We have laws for bullying, harassment, and crimes. Use those.

      Do you. What are your anti bullying laws?

      • but we can never read other people's minds.

      You don't have to when it comes to applying hate speech laws. Because they said it.

      Nail them for the crime

      The crime is discrimination or hate speech. The nature of those crimes is that they have a target group.

      Proof?

      The C-16 added the words "gender identity or expression" in three places to existing laws, that already protect other groups who are victims of hate speech and discrimination.

      The exact same law already acts on those other groups. Without causing a breakdown in society.

      Now who's being stupid?

      Not sure I'm following. Is it you?

      [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

      Do you. What are your anti bullying laws?

      Don't be a lazy fuck. Look them up yourself. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Canada+anti-bullying+laws

      That's the you don't have to when it comes to applying hate speech laws. Because they said it.

      Only IF they say it.

      The crime is discrimination or hate speech. The nature of those crimes is that they have a target group.

      We have discrimination laws. Don't be a lazy fuck. Look them up yourself. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Canada+discrimination+laws

      Again, to my initial point: All laws that are to suppress "hate" are political bullshit, just as "equality" is bullshit when all everyone wants is consistent fairness.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Don't be a lazy fuck.

      Bad day again Jason?

      Want to talk about it?

      You claimed there were anti-bullying laws in Canada that were sufficient to police hate speech and discrimination in Canada.

      From your own links:

      “Bullying” isn’t marked as a criminal offence as per the Canadian Criminal Code.

      Hence my question.

      Do you want to have another go without being a cunt or are you happy to leave it at this, now that we've discovered that there's no obvious laws that cover this, and certainly you're mistaken about the name of those laws?

      Only IF they say it.

      How can it be hate speech if they don't say it?

      We have discrimination laws.

      My point exactly. C-16 added the group "gender identity or expression" to your discrimination laws.

      All laws that are to suppress "hate" are political bullshit

      Are you calling the laws against inciting or promoting hatred "suppressing" hate?

      Because anything that doesn't allow it to be spread is suppressing it?

      The way you wrote it seems like you think that how an individual feels is criminal, and the laws are designed to suppress the feeling of hate in an individual. That's not the case.

      [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Bad day again Jason?

      My day was great. I can't sleep. What's your excuse for being up at 3am EST? Are you a Mossad shill operating from Israel?

      From your own links:

      You skipped the link you claim to cite.

      Do you want to have another go without being a cunt or are you happy to leave it at this, now that we've discovered that there's no obvious laws that cover this, and certainly you're mistaken about the name of those laws?

      In addition to your SJW trolling, calling me a cunt is downward again. /u/d3rr may have to ban you.

      Clearly you didn't even do any research.

      Only IF they say it.

      How can it be hate speech if they don't say it?

      Exactly my point: All laws that are to suppress "hate" are political bullshit, just as "equality" is bullshit when all everyone wants is consistent fairness.

      That includes "hate speech", "hate crimes", "hate anything".

      My point exactly. C-16 added the group "gender identity or expression" to your discrimination laws.

      The discrimination laws have their pros and cons. The real bullshit is compelled speech. The real big bullshit is real big government.

      Are you calling the laws against inciting or promoting hatred "suppressing" hate?

      Don't put bullshit words in my mouth.

      I don't give a fuck about "hate". I give a fuck about criminal actions, regardless of motive. If someone accidentally runs someone down, they are guilty. If they do it intentionally in hate or for the insurance payout, they are guilty. If they do in love high on ecstasy in a pink Cadillac, they are still guilty.

      That's not the case.

      Your government's case is full of bullshit.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Don't put bullshit words in my mouth.

      Calm the fuck down, snowflake.

      I was asking for clarification, not putting words into your mouth.

      Only IF they say it.

      How can it be hate speech if they don't say it?

      Exactly my point: All laws that are to suppress "hate" are political bullshit, just as "equality" is bullshit when all everyone wants is consistent fairness.

      What?

      [–][deleted]  (7 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        Only left-wing media outlets say he identified his wife, child, etc.

        You claim that the Vancouver Sun is "left wing"?

        What's your basis for that claim?

        and only right-wing media outlets say he was jailed just for pronoun usage.

        Mass resisitance, breitbard and the federalist?

        It's a bit of a stretch to lump them in with media outlets isn't it? Surely we shouldn't be comparing the fake news industry with journalism?

        but I only found evidence of him violating the pronoun mandate.

        He didn't give the interviews reported on by the vancouver sun?

        Furthermore, the left-wing media outlets never provide sources for their claims; I can't just trust them without evidence.

        Jesus mate. You just linked to fucking breitbart.

        It's hard to find the original videos, since they're banned from big tech for "hate speech," so all I have to work with is one clip I found on YouTube (that probably won't be there for long). There are longer interviews somewhere, but I didn't find them.

        Okay. Most plausibly he did both. Gave an interview in which he misgendered his child. To be fair it wouldn't be know to the court if he misgendered his child in private, so that he breached that part of the court order implies that he breached the bit about talking publicly about it.

        Even if he broke that part of the order too: it doesn't warrant six months in literal prison, unless he or someone else was sending them death threats —

        If the court tells you to do something, and you don't, the punishment has to ramp up pretty quickly. If you keep asking people to comply, it wastes the court's time, and makes a mockery of the legal system if ignoring it is a viable option. You can be jailed indefinitely for contempt in the US. All you have to do to avoid literal prison is do what the judge says while you appeal.

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

          ActuallyNot is much like socks but doesn't manipulate/deceive yet is terribly misinformed and not as smart (doubleplus ungood), and with their obvious full-on SJW bias while being less prolific ActuallyNot is actually less annoying, IMO.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]JasonCarswellPirate Party 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

            Socks at least tries to make real arguments; this ActuallyNot guy is an obvious troll. He got mad that I said the sky wasn't blue LOL.

            IFIFY:
            Socks at least tries to make real arguments sometimes and pretends to try other times and usually lies about or evades actual debate against his shill agenda biases. ActuallyNot guy is just an obvious true believer SJW asstroll, easily ignored. He got mad that I said his balls were blue LOL.

            [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            He got mad that I said his balls were blue LOL.

            lmao

            [–]wristaction 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            Relax. "Misgendering" isn't a thing.

            [–]adultmanhwa 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            this is why 'the neo left' deserve hatred

            [–]Noam_ChomskyPirate Party 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

            I'm imagining this former daughter dressing like a lumber jack.

            [–]Popper 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            jailed after . . . doesn't necessarily mean that is why. He was in contempt of court, which means he pissed off the judge. Judges have too much power IMO, they can put you in jail just if they feel like it.