Is Freedom of Speech in Canada on Trial in Ontario Case?

[Superjudge]

I dunno...

http://notable.ca/instagram-has-bann...fighting-back/

[Apollo]

I would argue, though, that he wasn't off-base doing this, as it appears that the article that started this whole conversation is, indeed, blatantly anti-feminist, and (as mentioned above) intentionally mis-informative.

No, it was clear what the thread was about. It was Quirk's choice to take it on a different direction.

Whether or not the guy is a jerk or creepy or whatever is different than whether he's a criminal.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[JimiCliff]

No, it was clear what the thread was about. It was Quirk's choice to take it on a different direction.

Whether or not the guy is a jerk or creepy or whatever is different than whether he's a criminal.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

Sorry, but it wasn't clear. It seemed like it was about one thing, based on one journalist's reporting, but five minutes of research shows that reporting to be complete horseshit.

Without Quirk's protestations, I wouldn't have been bothered to look into it any deeper, and maybe we're all still believing that what was presented in that article is fact. Quirk's sense of this all being tied to darker underlying attitudes was, in fact, dead on.

[Quirk]

Also why must you continue to be abusive toward a me?

I'm not being abusive towards you, I'm just talking straight. I very much value RR, and seeing straight-up MRA sexism here is disconcerting.

As far is the thread being about criminality alone, there seems to be a double standard there, you repeatedly imply that if Steph has a case, no worries, because it would be held up in court, but you find it "crazy and scary" that sexist troll dude is facing charges at all.

Why is your faith in the justice system not extending to his case? If she has no case, won't that also be revealed in court? And why are you approvingly citing media know to be, as Jimmi put it, blatently anti-feminist?

The framing of this whole thread, and not from you alone, is that Steph's case is totally without basis, and the victim here is #FascistFeminists sexist troll dude. Reread the thread if you don't believe me, including your OP. Steph is portrayed as a disingenius, vindictive bitch, again, not by you alone, but your OP set the tone.

Meanwhile, this case is not just some random case, troll dude was trolling women who where known to be active against harassment and cyberbullying, a very real problem you have yet to acknowledge, he wouldn't stop and so yes, they chose to press charges.

Yet, the problem of bullyiing and harassment remains whatever the outcome of this case might be, and so it's odd that you find the situation "crazy and scary" (but only from troll dude's point of view) and refuse to discuss the broader topic.

I'm not being abusive when I say your position is sexist, I'm being honest.

[Apollo]

I don't find it crazy for him. What I find crazy is that it would get to court with the police stating there was no evidence; as per the article. That kicked off the thread. She could have been your insulting stereotypical male meathead and it wouldn't have made any difference to me. You chose to take the thread down this path of trying to shame posters for not bowing to your superior feminist views.

Again, if you don't like me or other posters in here or what you think we represent then by all means go elsewhere. If you choose to stay then please be respectful.

As for all the other crap in your post, whatever dude. You're jumping to conclusions and highly quick to point the finger. Relax a little.

Sorry, but it wasn't clear. It seemed like it was about one thing, based on one journalist's reporting, but five minutes of research shows that reporting to be complete horseshit.

Without Quirk's protestations, I wouldn't have been bothered to look into it any deeper, and maybe we're all still believing that what was presented in that article is fact. Quirk's sense of this all being tied to darker underlying attitudes was, in fact, dead on.

If that's the case it should still have been very clear in the multiple times I said my concern was with this making it to court without the police turning up anything as per the article. If Quirk has a problem with the National Post he/she should take it up with them. During his/her rampage through this thread Quirk dropped many judgements and opinions but didn't provide articles to back anything up. Who you gonna believe, anonymous Quirk or the National Post? Most people will pick the paper. There is a face to that. A name to that. The NP was slammed by you and Quirk but who verifies Quirk?

Also keep in mind this is a thread on a sports board. This isn't a blog, newspaper, radio or TV show. There is no expectation for anyone here to take on major research before posting a discussion topic.

I'm locking because this is just going around in circles of what the National Post said and how repeating or even believing any of that information equates to the person being a misrable sexist pig. In other words this thread will only get worse.


Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

[JimiCliff]

A Final Word on the 'Freedom of Speech' Thread

Not that I care too deeply about this whole situation, but the final post in the thread that was recently locked by Apollo made a claim I want to respond to, and should have been allowed to.

If that's the case it should still have been very clear in the multiple times I said my concern was with this making it to court without the police turning up anything as per the article. If Quirk has a problem with the National Post he/she should take it up with them. During his/her rampage through this thread Quirk dropped many judgements and opinions but didn't provide articles to back anything up. Who you gonna believe, anonymous Quirk or the National Post? Most people will pick the paper. There is a face to that. A name to that. The NP was slammed by you and Quirk but who verifies Quirk?

It isn't about Quirk or National Post. It's about Toronto Star/Metro News or National Post, and their two wildly different portrayals of the story at hand. I'd make a strong argument, given the facts at hand, the the NP was intentionally distorting the truth, and this distortion of the truth created the basis for the entire discussion that followed. This is something worth addressing, IMO, and to cut that conversation off before it can happen is odd, and bad.

[Apollo]

Open

It would be funny for a thread about freedom of speech to be locked to disallow speech but if we continue down the same path of name calling, hostile attacks and accusations then its going back into lock down. I didn't want to lock this thing in the first place but I had my hand forced.

Good points in your last post Jimi so for that we're open again for now.

[Miekenstien]

It doesn't matter unless we can see all the tweets from both parties. One article points women in a bad light and the other the man. Neither side has context.

The facts are no one was ever in physical danger. And as for sexism, if a "dude"(right quirk) brought this criminally you would laugh at him for being a pussy. Making it an issue on feminism is sexist.

I can see this opening up a discussion on cyber-bullying, here in china every account needs an id card, basically a drivers license, as identification so nothing anonymous. This way the government can arrest you for thoughts. Maybe something like that in Canada can work?

I didn't realize how important free speech was until I saw what happens when it is taken away.

[Apollo]

here in china every account needs an id card, basically a drivers license, as identification so nothing anonymous. This way the government can arrest you for thoughts. Maybe something like that in Canada can work?

I didn't realize how important free speech was until I saw what happens when it is taken away.

If you've never read the book "1984" you could probably relate to some of it given what you're telling us. Mind blowing that it's almost 70 years old.

[Miekenstien]

If you've never read the book "1984" you could probably relate to some of it given what you're telling us. Mind blowing that it's almost 70 years old.

Yeah I read it. Me and my "foreign" friends joke it is the secret bible after the official maos' little red book. Animal farm though is the picture perfect analogy for china. The "everyone is equal but some are more equal" is spot on but always remember the ccp works for you.

[Miekenstien]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Definition of hate speech and how it is implemented around the world

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate...laws_in_Canada
Hate speech in Canada. With a quick exert from the constitution

This is what the main topic is about and how this case affects these issues, as far as I can understand.

[Miekenstien]

"OntarioEdit

The Ontario Human Rights Code forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances.[36] An adjudicator may order inter alia a respondent: to pay monetary compensation to the complainant "including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; to make restitution to the complainant "including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect"; and to do anything that will rectify the respondent's violation of the Code.
"

From the wiki article. So if the truth is what the womens' attorneys are saying, an apology and financial compensation with probably a restraining order to follow.

If the mans' attorneys are right then probably financial compensation for the lost livelihood and subsequent loss of freedoms in a countersuit.

[thead]

as a man who routinely spouted sexist jokes and held sexist beliefs I can tell you that your encounters with an ardent feminist will at first hurt a part of your brain located somewhere at the top at least in me it did. I transitioned gradually in my adulthood to being a full fledged feminist. I still slip on occasion as almost 30 years of programming is bound to do to a person. There are all kinds of resources on the topic and especially what women go through online...I've read at least a dozen think pieces on the topic in the last year alone. It's horrific

But try to read through it and ignore the part of your brain that thinks it knows everything. It's tough and will come in fits and starts, but your relationships with people and especially women will become far more meaningful when you allow yourself to be an ally and not shy away from the fact that feminism is essentially humanism and that patriarchy does a lot of damage to men as well as women (anyone ever been ashamed to cry as a starting off point?)

[Miekenstien]

But feminism isn't on trial. It isn't a debate of man vs woman. I treat people how I want to be treated. I show respect and am polite. The more I get to know a person the more I open up to them and begin to let them see the "unprotected" me. I have women friends. (I made it a point in my life to get 1 Mexican friend, 1 black friend, 1 gay friend etc) for just this type of occasion.

My women friends know me and know when I make a joke about them being women it is a joke. I don't go around spouting horrid shit at anybody. Even those women I know, staunch womens' rights advocates, will make jokes about being women.

Treating people how you want to be treated is just mutual respect and has nothing to do with sexism.


Some people, anyone see senseight?(episode one at the pride day with the "neo feminists") will always shout that you are wrong and they are right.


Take the differences out of the people in this case, it isn't man vs woman, and just see two people, not unlike the south park flag, and judge the case and it's implications. The thread had turned into a who is and isn't in support of womens' rights. Anybody here against women? I doubt it. Anyone in here against blacks? I don't think so.

Freedom of speech and thought are two ideologies that make up our civilization. Does this case infringe on this mans right to free speech or thought? If he was saying this to another man are the people fighting for women still saying he is wrong?

That's hypocritical and sexist,

[Miekenstien]

http://o.canada.com/news/new-twist-i...arassment-case

An article about the trial where a friend has written in, that gunthrie and the other women conspired against Elliot. Also mentions how this case is more about perceived abuses as compared to actual abuses