Advice for migration

[dizmo]

45 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Oddly enough, in the first link you mention they state that "repeated offenses could constitute harassment."

At the level of anti-discrimination, C-16 means that you can instigate a complaint for discrimination or harassment. Using the wrong pronouns repeatedly after being made aware that a person uses other pronouns might amount to harassment, a position that is taken by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

 

And again, as to hate speech, what exactly does that entail? It claims:

"In terms of hate speech, it is forbidden to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” in a public space."

So to me, that sounds like Canada's Kermit, Jordan Peterson is having a civil discussion and people barge in spraying shit in peoples eyes while threatening them constitutes that, but it often goes unpunished.

 

Your second link doesn't say much, but the third again reaffirms.

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun.   The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.  In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.  And the remedies?  Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures).

I fail to see the problems you're getting from anything you wrote. Continuing to call someone what they don't want to be called is harassment, especially if it's in a workplace setting (which is what most of this is based on). Regardless of what you're calling the person. If it's an identifiable group, as you've pointed out, then it's a hate crime. Just like it'd be if it was based on race, just like it'd be if it was based on sexuality (gay/lesbian).

 

If you'd actually listened to any of Jordon Peterson's lectures, you'd know he's not a Kermit. Saying that is, once again, proving you don't know the topic. At all.

I can see the response that you've made to @dalekphalm's post just further proves that. You're grasping at straws.

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Oddly enough, in the first link you mention they state that "repeated offenses could constitute harassment."

At the level of anti-discrimination, C-16 means that you can instigate a complaint for discrimination or harassment. Using the wrong pronouns repeatedly after being made aware that a person uses other pronouns might amount to harassment, a position that is taken by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Yes. Repeated offenses. Harassment. If you harass someone repeatedly, by picking on something strictly protected by Human Rights legislation (Eg: Them being transgender), yeah... that's a hate crime.

 

I see no confusion here.

 

You want to think of a MTF Transgendered person as a man? Sure. Whatever. But keep it in your head. If you repeatedly call them "boy" or "man" after they've explicitly and repeatedly asked you to refer to them as female, you are harassing them, and because you're picking on their gender/sexual orientation/sexual identity, that's a hate crime.

 

The exact same as if you kept calling a gay person a "Fa-" over and over again, because of their sexual orientation - that too would be a hate crime.

 

The exact same as if you kept calling a black person a "n----r" over and over again, because they're black - that too would be a hate crime.

 

Seriously, I don't personally find this difficult to understand. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

And again, as to hate speech, what exactly does that entail? It claims:

"In terms of hate speech, it is forbidden to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace” in a public space."

Yeah... I don't really see the confusion here. Don't call gay people "fa*" and don't call black people "n-word", etc.

 

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

 

Your second link doesn't say much, but the third again reaffirms.

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun.   The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.  In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.  And the remedies?  Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures).

But there's not really any defining line of what is and isn't hate speech. Kind of like the Irishman that got fined because he taught his girlfriends pug to "heil" Hitler.

Each case has to be a long, drawn out process.

First off, the whole Hitler salute dog thing was in the UK. Different country. With that in mind - I personally can easily see why that was considered a hate crime. Sure it was a joke. But the dumbass put it online.

 

You want to make bad jokes about Hitler or jews or whatever? Do it privately, and you won't get in trouble.

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

If "repeated misuse" of a pronoun enters hate speech, what number is that set at? 5? 10? 15? How do they even prove that? Hearsay, or do they need some kind of video or audio evidence? Would they only need to record it once, or 50 times?

Presumably there must be evidence - and generally the "victim"'s word alone would be insufficient for any criminal proceedings (just look at Rape cases). Usually we'd be looking at audio recordings, or multiple witness testimonies.

 

How frequently? It's decided on a case by case scenario. You can't just assign a magic number that says 4 times is okay but 5 times isn't. Context matters, my friend. How did the 4 times happen? Was it a mistake each time? Was it intentional? Was it specifically antagonistic?

 

The point is that if you keep doing it over and over again on purpose, you ARE harassing the person. I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

What you guys fail to realize is just how slippery a slope that very quickly turns into.

Anything can be a slippery slope. The laws make it clear enough that a single accidental incident won't be grounds for criminal charges (or fines), so there's no risk of a person just accidentally getting charged with hate speech.

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I never said you'd be jailed for saying it once, but being fined for it at all is ridiculous.

Being fined for repeated harassment that enters into the realm of hate speech isn't ridiculous.

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Actually, it explicitly is. That's why it exists. No one said it was "acceptable," although that depends on the individual you're talking to.

Incorrect - in Canada, the country we're talking about, Free Speech has never meant that. As I said, some people have the (incorrect) notion that "Free Speech" is somehow a "I get to say whatever the fuck I want" card. It's not. There are consequences for your actions. Some of those consequences might be purely social (Eg: If you're super racist, people will probably think you're a racist asshole), whereas in other cases there might be actual legal consequences.

 

In Canada, contributing to Hate Speech can lead to legal consequences. And I'm perfectly okay with that.

[Drak3]

Ad multiple Canadians pointed out, Canada is not that great a place to live.

[RichardTechNoob]

I live in Norway. And as a Norwegian, I'd say that the country is pretty nice to live in. The best would be the big cities because it's much easier to get work. Unemployment rate is about 3-4%. Electronics are not too expensive compared to other European countries. Good to know if you love tech :). The nature is amazing as well. Mind blowing views and very safe to walk around in Norway. Not many dangerous places that you need to keep away from. World's safest when it comes to traffic accidents, cheap electricity and worlds best mobile phone internet speed. Most of Oslo now has fiber net. My parents has 870mb/s down, 335mb/s up lol. 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Ad multiple Canadians pointed out, Canada is not that great a place to live.

Let's just call that a "difference of opinion" on what constitutes a great place to live.

 

Canada is awesome. I can't think of a single country I would rather live in. And I highly value and respect the rights and laws we have that protect not only personal freedoms (so long as that freedom doesn't extend to affect another negatively), but also our solid and foundational protections for those who vulnerable members of society.

 

Is there room for improvement? Hell yes. Just like literally every other country on Earth. But we're doing pretty good all things considered.

 

We also welcome immigration and other cultures (though you still need to respect the Charter and the Bill of Rights, regardless of your culture or country of origin).

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

laws we have that protect not only personal freedoms

Your (idiotic) laws don't protect personal freedoms, they infringe upon them.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Your (idiotic) laws don't protect personal freedoms, they infringe upon them.

We certainly don't agree on this. Our laws are definitely the opposite of idiotic. Absolute total freedom with zero legal consequences is severely idiotic, as it allows people to legally infringe upon the rights of others.

 

The moment your "freedom" affects others negatively, it's no longer simple "personal freedom".

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Our laws are definitely the opposite of idiotic.

You banned the AR15 because it looks like the M16, but don't ban other rifles firing the 5.56 NATO caliber round, utilizing analogous "high" capacity magazines.

 

You banned compact pistols for self defense.

 

You lack free speech, and insist that calling a man a man is hate speech because he insists on forcing his delusion on you.

 

Canadian law is idiotic.

[Andreas Lilja]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Is there room for improvement? Hell yes. Just like literally every other country on Earth. But we're doing pretty good all things considered.

Most of Europe is way more progressive.

 

I'd gladly pay 25% VAT for all those sensible benefits.

 

Here our politicians look to the U.S. for guidance...

 

 

 

 

[airdeano]

i a smell s'thing a bit off-topic.it is a pungent odor of malcontent for our rules.

for this discourse, it shall be.. thread locked

<-LOCKED->