Re: Canada to Start Punishing People for Pre-Crime

On 3/25/2024 3:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 14, 2024 at 12:47:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/13/2024 10:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
    moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
 

  On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

  On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article
  <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
  moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>

  On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
  The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>

  On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
  <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

  A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
  eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
  identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
  so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
  hate speech.

>
  I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
  denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.

>
  Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
  been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
  speech?
>
  Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
  nearest maximum security prison?

>
  Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
  speech' presumably is.

>
  Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>
  Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
  appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
  than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
  controls.

>
  No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
  Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>
  Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
  of mind, not the offendee's.

>
  Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
  days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
  matter.
>
  That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
  matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
  who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
  person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.

>
  'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
  unexpectedly injurious.

    No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
  that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
  person's thoughts and feelings matter.

 NOTE: In a current case against the ACLU, this is exactly what the ACLU is
arguing: intent doesn't matter. Only the offense of the aggrieved matters.
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bias.html
 The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee
behavior and speech that labor law protects-- and how the nation's pre-eminent
civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side of that law,
arguing that those protections should not apply to its former employee.
 A lawyer representing the ACLU, Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding
last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All
that mattered, he said, was that her black colleagues were offended and
injured.
 

  'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
  already knowing.
>
  By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.

    Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?

>
Expectation isn't presumption.

The article's paywalled but, if Ms. Oh had no reason to expect that her black colleagues would be offended, the lawyer above seems to be full of shit.  And, since the ACLU isn't often full of shit, I'm guessing that Ms. Oh might've unreasonably ignored a few common racial understandings.