this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
42 points (68.8% liked)
Canada
7083 readers
481 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Regions
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
π Social & Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Freedom of speech or freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences. Words matter, and they have consequences, and people should consider the consequences of their speech in public.
Agreed. Fuck off with this "we have no free speech" bullshit, substack (and it's freedom of conscience in Canada in the first place, not free speech). All of the things listed are social consequences, not criminal prosecution or some other government persecution. Sarah was booted by her party, not the government, and the rest are employers and universities. If there is fault, it lies with those organizations.
It's also not protected speech, so if there is fault, those organizations will have to suffer social consequences themselves, as it doesn't seem that they broke any laws.
There's a bit of a blurred line when they're members of government or government organizations versus private employers.
A political party IS part of government, even if it's not the political party leading the country. However, a party shouldn't be forced to keep somebody who goes off the rails and is causing them damage. At the same time, those same parties seem to be very pick-and-choose about which "rebellious" members they decide to expel and over what issues
Clock is ticking. Just wait until the companies start fucking you over with this power you've given them.
Like most people, I avoid companies that platform hate, and am perfectly contented being banned from them if they go that far. That's not a power they ever didn't have.
Like I said, clock is ticking. You won't be so happy go lucky when it's your job getting a new CEO or a big platform like YouTube denying you access to a platform.
My job getting a new CEO? Getting a new useless figurehead is supposed to scare me? Why? Youtube is going to block me? Why should I care? They either moderate hateful content, or they lose me and a great many others -voluntarily.
Indeed. And if the NDP won't allow its members to recognize that Israel is an apartheid state, then members who see it as such should abandon the party. Both those serving as public representatives, and regular members and donors.
Asking a genuine question regarding the apartheid terminology here. When someone refers to Israel as a apartheid state with regards to Palestinian civilians it always doesn't make sense to me. Because for that to be true, one needs to consider Gaza and Westbank to be Israeli territory, which I don't think is a concept that anyone who makes this claim agrees with. To me, that's like saying North America is an apartheid continent because Canadians and Mexicans don't get the same rights as Americans in America.
During the Apartheid era in South Africa there were also nominal "independent" countries, known as Bantustans. Israel occupies the West Bank, effectively controlling it the way a Bantustan were controlled. The blockade of Gaza has a similar effect. Finally, there are discriminatory laws in Israel proper. For more information, read this as a starter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
Thank you for the explanation. To me it still seems to be a case of expanding the terminology beyond it's original meaning given the context. The situation today is more of a country occupying part of another country while laying siege on another part of the said country. If this can be referred to as apartheid I don't see why it can't be used on most invasions and occupational wars in human history. Furthermore, I'm too young know what people thinks of South Africa back then, but as far as I can remember South Africa has been seen as a single unit in my lifetime. Hence, referring to Israel as an apartheid state in my mind has the implication of Israel somehow has the right and responsibility of ruling over Palestinian territory. Treating the citizens of an occupied country poorly is bad but shouldn't automatically qualify as apartheid, even though I agree there are some resemblance in practice.
The case with Israel proper is more interesting because you can make the case that there are some apartheid elements such as the fact only Jews enjoys the right to automatically become Israeli citizens which isn't available to other ethnic groups that currently resides in Israel. However to my knowledge Israel proper isn't what most people think of when they make the case that Israel is an apartheid state, even tho imo it makes a more compelling case per definition.
Don't be dense, read the article. The story is not about legality or free speech absolutism. It is about how the window of acceptable political speech in what is considered mainstream has narrowed to a stifling degree to exclude very reasonable milquetoast peacenik sentiments.
Then it shouldn't use the words "free speech" in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.
So is theft and murder and inheritance. We use legal terms in regular parlance all the time.
Ok, and? Regular parlance can be about legal implications too, I've never heard the words "free speech" used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?
Yes. The very article in this post.
You ever heard of a circular argument?
It's complicated. Legally we don't have "freedom of speech".
For clarification: Do I believe that's a core human value? Absolutely.
Do I believe that tolerance is a social contact we should all abide by? Very much so!
Do I trust society to regulate itself? Heck no, from a sociological point of view that's a mess for lots of reasons. In smaller communities it may be ideal, but anything anyone says now is considered on a global scale.
So, from where I stand, it makes sense for a governing body to place limited restrictions on what a person should be allowed to say in the public sphere. This specific issue is debatable and relies on a certain amount of faith in the institution. Is it right that these people were punished for saying their beliefs? That's another complicated view that depends on a case by case basis. Is it legally allowable that a politician be censured for what they say? That depends on what they said. Is it morally allowable? From a moral absolutionist point of view, probably not, but our charters were made to prevent people from calling for violence in the public sphere. Is it morally acceptable to allow for someone to call for violence in a very real way as a political representative? What constitutes violence? How far can we deconstruct the rhetorical arguments our society is based on?
It's complicated. We don't have freedom of speech and we don't have freedom from consequences. If you give people you agree with freedom from consequences you also have to give it to the people you don't agree with.
It's not a view. It's written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and empowered by our constitution.
Both the article in the OP, and the comment you're responding to are using it in the legal sense.
You're misunderstanding something then.