Ontario teen suspended for using word "*********" on FACEBOOK!!!

Tomfoo13ry asked you a very good question that you haven't answered. He asked, "Who gets to define such things? Me or you? Will you object if ultimately I'm the one who gets to decide?"

I'd also like to know, are you in favor of hate speech laws when it's us conservatives that get to decide what hate speech is?

 

I answered it within reason. I'm no legal expert, but I'm sure guidelines can (and likely will) be drafted. If certain abuses continue, they won't go unaddressed for 'all' time. Laws will likely be enacted, eventually.

Who get to define what WARS we get into? I'm sure it won't be any 'one' person writing such laws.

I wonder how Canada and the U.K. decided those kinds of things. We need laws (about speech) similar to theirs, IMO. (Canadian and British citizens, do you have anything to say about this?)

I'm sure it will not be just YOU or one person. It will be a process involving many people.

Again... I'm no legal expert. But I have never been in favor of allowing people to say just ANYTHING, and not be held responsible for it. Maybe that stems from my "Conservative" upbringing.

 

Well, I'm thoroughly confused, Johnny. First, you say that you'd like to see people "cited" for "hateful speech". Then you said that you didn't want people to be punished for certain types of speech. Now you're saying that you want laws like they have in the UK and Canada. Well, in the UK and Canada they can and do punish people for certain types of speech. So, which is it? You can't have it both ways, at some point you should probably pick a position and stick with it.

 

Look at the full meaning of what I suggested overall. What I said, is pretty much what I meant.

I'll leave the details to lawyers/lawmakers.

As I said several times, you have the right to disagree (or be confused). Perhaps later I'll express what I mean in some clearer fashion.

Bottom line: I'm not one who believes people should say WHATEVER THEY WISH, and not face responsibility for the 'effects' of what they said. I abide by the laws as they are now written, but I would like to see them changed to reflect something similar to what Canada or the U.K. has implemented.

Perhaps more on that at a later time.

 

The problem you have is that what we are talking about here in Canada and the UK isn't legistlation, it's part of our Charter Rights and Freedoms (our version of the Bill of Rights) as well as our Constitution which are incredibly difficult (impossible in the case of the Bill of Rights?) to change. It's part of what makes the US the US and Canada, Canada. It's the reason for the fundamental differences between our countries and goes FAR deeper into the intricasies of our societies than simply talking about 'hate speech'.

As I have suggested multiple times in this thread the disagreements with the judgement coming from Americans is an issue of Nationality and the differences between Nations. Tomfoolery earlier in the thread suggested that humans have universal rights, which I still think is nonsense because that would require someone to have decided what rights were allowed in the first place (unless you're going to suggest that God was the one who outlined those, which you're entitled to believe, but then I can ask the question - Who's God? a person in India would answer differently than someone from the United States.) The Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms etc etc are the docuements that outline those rights and defend them in their respective countries and difference in opinions of those documents is perfectly reasonable but ultimately it is the people (through the government) of a nation that decide what Rights they hold valuable and are worthy of defence through the courts and government of that country.

Again this is an issue of Nationalism and this case outlines why Canada and the US are not the same country and how we value different things at different levels (in this case the possible persecution of people based solely on political, religious or ethnic purposes versus universal freedom of speech).

 

If there is no such thing as universal human rights then you have no rights at all, merely a series of privileges granted to you by your betters. Your stance means that things like slavery and murder don't infringe on anyone's rights as long as the institution or the action is codified in law.

Since we're all here and on the subject: Johnny, do you agree with Roy that there is no such thing as a universal human right?

 

I admire her heroism.

She called a muslim a bad name.

Next she will call an American "retarded".

And be sent to Nova Scotia to thaw out.

 

How do you manage to answer 6 posts in a row?

 

I accept the education and extra details you've related. But most of all, I DO wish that we'd be more reasonable about that which we allow concerning "free speech". Some people go too far indeed, and we should address it (but we seldom do).

 

The general or natural definition of that is somewhat 'nebulous'. In reality, those rights must be spelled-out, specifically (by law) in a civilized society. Otherwise, subjectivity would 'justify' virtually ANY individual's behavior (or violations of another's freedoms).

Universal human right? I have an idea of what that should be, but it wouldn't be my place to define that for 'everyone'.

 

Rights are things your country holds so dear that not even legistlation can take them away. Priviladges are things you can have taken away, like a drivers lisence.

There are things you would consider a universal right that others in the world would not.

Once again I ask who decides what a universal right is, how are they defined, who's authority are they given to you?

If everyone has a right to life, why are you allowed to kill your enemies? That's the most basic "right" that would be universally accepted that I can think of, and yet it is violated in war consistantly. You kill you enemies in war, if that's a universal right then why is that permitted?

 

"Rights are things your country holds so dear that not even legistlation can take them away". -- You almost got it in one. Rights have nothing to do with national borders. The idea that they wholly rely on which imaginary lines on a map a person happens to find themselves in at any given time is ludicrous. Such a position would say that black people being enslaved or Jews being marched into a gas chamber were not having their rights infringed simply because the majority of the people around them approved.

You labor under this notion that rights must be granted to you by some authority greater than yourself.

 

Your refused to answer my question. What decides what are Rights and what are priviladges?

If they're so natural, why can't we agree on what they are? Can you give me a list and clear definitions of what they are? Why was slavery an institution for thousands of years throughout the world if it was unethical because it violated our "rights".

Are we at the pinnacle of civilization where we can finally decide what universal rights are and what they aren't? I think that idea is silly.

 

Rights are derived from human reason and exist regardless of laws or the actions of mobs, privileges are granted by others. I have a right to life, to liberty and to the fruits of my labor. The fact that I'm no better than you, and that you are no better than me means that neither of us can infringe on the rights of the other. I don't have the right to take your life or to silence you. There is no rationale that I can fathom that justifies initiating violence against another human being merely for the words that come from their mouth. Do you feel that you have the right to physically assault someone because they something offensive? If not, then how do you have the right to have someone else do it for you? Essentially, my rights rely on the fact that you don't have the right to initiate force against me, and vice versa.

Because tyrants have existed throughout history.

Is this really your argument? That slavery existed and therefore humans don't have a universal right to not be owned by other humans? If Canada passed a law tomorrow enslaving an entire segment of the population, would you not say that those enslaved were having their rights infringed upon?

 

Do you really think that all human reason is equal? Many would argue that you do not have the right to the fruits of your labour. It's called socialism, I may not agree with it, but a large segment of the population (probably not a majority, but that's up for debate) would disagree with you there. How do you define "better" you're using entirely perogative terms there. You don't have a right to take my life, under any circumstances by your arguement, you don't have a right to silence me? I guess there would be no wars then. You have no right to kill another being based upon the flag they fly behind them. You have no right to attack someone because they believe in slavery then, even if you believe it is wrong. If rights are universal, then they are universal, no matter what the actions of the individual, rights cannot be abandoned.

You name 3 ideals that you have apparently claimed to be "universal rights" but you use arbitrary terms to define them "life liberty and fruits of labour". Can you tell me EXACTLY what those terms mean so that I'm 100% sure I don't infringe on them? You also didn't mention Free Speech as one of those, does that fall under Liberty? You'll have to be very specific here, I'm not being difficult, I'm being real.. Liberty is very vague depending on where in the world you live.

Human reason is created equal, is that your arguement? I think that is flawed.

I would say if Canada passed a law tomorrow enslaving an entire segment of the population that rights would be infringed, and I would cite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which Canada had decided as the final conclusion on Rights and Freedoms in our country as the reason that those rights had been infringed, not our "natural" rights. I do not think those exist, otherwise we would be consistantly be in conflict with eachother as human beings.

If rights are natural, why is it that only in the last 150 years we have respected the right to "Liberty" in respect to slavery, and why is it that the country that supposedly respects "Liberty" the most was the last to abandon slavery?

 

Ahh, so in 1981 Canadians could have been enslaved without having their rights infringed upon but being enslaved in 1982 would be different? Is that the only difference? Why would the first Charter of Rights and Freedoms take precedence over the second Charter of Rights and Freedoms that enslaves half the population and nullifies the first one? As soon as the second Charter is passed, according to you, any right of Canadians to not be enslaved is null and void. Like at the circus, a ticket for Saturday doesn't entitle you to Sunday's show?

The right to life and liberty essentially means that peaceful people should not be met with violence. The right to self defense is inherent in that and I never claimed or implied that violence was wrong "under any circumstances". As for wars, no, simply flying a flag doesn't make killing right, nor did I ever imply that. That does seem to be the argument that you are making, though. Are you making that argument?

I've already partially answered that. Tyrants have always existed. I can't answer the rest of the question because you haven't established who "we" are nor that "we" have only respected the right to liberty regarding slavery for the past 150 years. If "we" means all humans, then I can think of instances where liberty was respected prior to 150 years ago, and instances where it wasn't respected much less than 150 years ago, so I'll need you to narrow that down.

Because of mob rule and a whole lot of ignorant people who thought that rights were things that were granted by laws instead of merely protected or infringed by them, essentially people using the same argument that you are. Thankfully, human reason prevailed. Of course, like I said, there is always a tyrant lying in wait capable of convincing the mob that it's okay to trash other people's rights as long as they write a law first. That's why history is littered with untold atrocities that were perfectly legal because the people who committed them wrote their plans down first and called them laws. Quite frankly, I find it despicable that your argument maintains that those slaves that you are using in your example didn't have a right to be free.

Your entire argument boils down to "might makes right" and you are using examples of atrocities committed by governments against non-aggressive people to convince me that things as obvious as the right to simply be alive can only be granted by those same people, otherwise they don't exist. I've been doing my best to answer all of your questions, now defend your own position. What logical justification can you offer for people having a right to enslave and kill peaceful people simply by writing a law?

 

You're a littie ignorant of our history here. We had a 'constitution' prior to 1982, called the British North America Act of 1867. Basically we were ruled under British Rights decsended from the Magna Carta prior to 1982 when we undertook a large effort to take control of our own constitution, because we began to value different rights than that of our British counterparts and wanted the ability to state those rights ourselves. It's called constitutional change and is done in a similar way to your Amendments, requiring a vast majority of Provinces to agree to change our rights. The signing of our Constitution and Bill of Rights was a big deal in my country, it signalled the transfer of the ability to claim our own "Rights" from Britian. This does nothing but prove my point that there are no universal rights and that they are chosen by the people of a country.

"Essentially means" is not a definition though, if you can't define it specifically, how can there be universal rights - How far do those two ideas extend?. I'm not trying to be difficult here I'm just trying to highlight how unless you can define it specifically for all people that the entire would would agree with it's simply not a universal right. Where does "Liberty" end? Can I go flying down a highway by myself at 200 kms an hour (*)(*)(*)(*) drunk so long as I'm sure nobody else will get hurt and not be afraid of going to Jail? Do I have a right to "Private property"? If I can come to own all the private property in a country can I simply kick everyone else out and throw a huge party for just me and my friends? Does the right to life mean we have to exhaust every possible outcome, no matter the cost or possible outcome (do I HAVE to donate a kidney to my dying Uncle in order for him to live 2 more days?) in order to cure a person who is sick (you do in my country under our health care system, but it's really weak in your country who claims to be the poster child for these rights.)

I think universal rights are just as dangerous as you think not having them is, I'm just one person that disagrees with you on this subject, I'm sure you could find millions (billions?) more that disagree with you - How universal are these rights if we're having disagreements.

Your arguement though is that rights are "Universal" meaning they have existed throughout history regardless. "We" refers to every human who ever lived, since those rights are universal. I don't need to narrow it down since you're making the greatest sweeping claim you can make. Narrowing it down actually contradicts your opinion because if rights are universal then there's no need to narrow it down and you can say "These are the rights that are universal, sure they've been broken numerous times in history but all those people (a majority of the human population if that's what you're suggesting) were wrong." I don't think that the Cave men understood the idea of "Liberty" in that regard, we are animals still remember - Highly evolved ones - but still animals nonetheless. Does this mean you're arguing that a higher power has instilled these rights? IE:God? Or do these rights apply to all animals?

*I* believe they have a right to be free, but that doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with me. I don't believe rights are universal, if you believe that arguement so much why aren't you out fighting those who are comitting slavery today (and I mean this literally, as there are plenty of places around the world that still do this).

Might doesn't make the rights, it defends them. People make the rights by either ignoring or facilitating their defence or degradation, so long as my country and my people do not do this then I have no need to use the "might" portion of your arguement. If it's happening elsewhere in the world that is a situation for the people of that country to deal with, be it through revolution (the historical means) or constitutional or legal change.

I would argue that any incarceration is the equivilant of enslavement in this regard. By your arguement there is no reason for ANY laws, since the universal rights are enough to defend "Liberty" and "Life" and that's all you need by your arguement. I don't think that either of those situations are ethical (this is different than a right, rights are ethics codified - but they are the ethics chosen by a paticular government and people) but at the same time it's not my "Right" to judge them any more than it's theirs to judge me. I can fight for what I think is a "Right", in this case the needless enslavement and killing of peaceful people, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the world holds the same values (clearly they don't). We also abandon these principles in war in the effort to defend these "Rights". I highly doubt that going back in history you would find a consistant definition of "Liberty" or that "Rights" would be continually recognized. That is something that came out of the French Revolution and the Magna Carta two profoundly important events that I am thankful that happened, but that doesn't make them universal rights.

 

I know what you mean. All the hate directed at whites has led to affirmative action in america and white genocide throughout much of africa.

 

You claimed that if Canadians were enslaved tomorrow that they would have had their rights infringed and that you would cite the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" that was passed in 1982 as "the reason". So, naturally, I inquired about the time prior to 1982. I was inviting you to answer that inquiry not go on some irrelevant trek through Canadian history while ignoring the crux of the question.

Jeebus... What don't you understand about "peaceful people should not be met with violence"? Your highway example: If you own the highway then you can go as fast as you want. If you don't own the highway then you are bound by whatever rules are set by the owner. Owning all the land in a country: See Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, you have a million questions and I'm not going to write you a book. The right to life: Your uncle's right to life does not trump your right to life. I don't believe you when you say that you can be forced to donate a kidney in Canada but if that were true then your right to life would be infringed regardless of whether or not the law dictates that you kidney be cut from your body.

That isn't even an argument. You could disagree that human beings have to breathe but that doesn't make it any less true.

So "we" was all humans throughout history. In that case, it was a loaded question since your premise that "only in the last 150 years we have respected the right to "Liberty" in respect to slavery" is false. Again, you are trying to use the fact that rights are infringed to show that they don't exist. It's like saying that someone didn't have a right to not get hit upside the head with a baseball bat since someone took a swing at them. Again, you don't actually have an argument. Presenting the same non-argument over and over again isn't going to change that.

C'mon...Present an actual argument for your case. "Why ain't u fighting in the slums of Africa" isn't an argument.

This is getting old. Your position maintains that rights are things that must have majority approval to exist. That is mob rule or in other words, "might makes right". This is why you can't even say that black people being enslaved in America or Jews being gassed in Germany had their rights infringed upon. According to you, they didn't have any rights since the mob that surrounded them decided that.

No, my argument never maintained or implied that there were no reason for any laws. That's another strawman that you've created.

Now, instead of deflecting with examples of rights being infringed and strawmen, actually answer the question asked of you.

What logical justification can you offer for people having a right to enslave and kill peaceful people simply by writing a law?

 

That is ludicrous BS. Stop making things up.

 

I provided you with the answer, The British North America Act of 1867 and the rights named in there.

So that's the definition? Fair enough then, so peaceful people should NEVER be met with violence no matter the situation, does this right trump all others such as property ownership. This is an interesting issue when you look at situations such as Occupy Wall-Street Movement, can you not forcibly remove them then? I'm once again not trying to be difficult, just trying to completely understand what you are saying there, IE: How far does that right go?.

Fair enough, good answer.

I looked it up, I'll admit I used Wiki and the article was not long but I believe I got the crux of the arguement.
"Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public."
Does that not trump your right to the fruits of your labour that you cited earlier then? How much land can I buy with the fruits of my labour before I'm infringing on the basic needs of others, by his definition I need to provide for all of the people in the country - Does that not infringe on my right to the fruits of my labour which you cited as a universal right earlier?

You misunderstood me here, I didn't say that in Canada I was forced to give the kidney, but that we exhaust all medical avenues possible before allowing someone to die. Also, giving up a kidney doesn't infringe on my right to life, you can live with only one and people donate them all the time. So it's not an issue of my right to life trumping his.

I do have an arguement and you're missing it entirely, your universal rights have not been recognized consistantly throughout history. There is no point where you can say "here, here's where we all had the same rights, here's where rights were universal". Rights have changed throughout history, that's my entire arguement and if that is true then there are no universal rights - Unless the entire world sits down and agrees upon them - Which we haven't.

Not an arguement, but an example of how rights are not universal. If they were, we would be so outraged they were being infringed that we would do something about it.

My position is that *I* believe their rights were being infringed based upon what I and my country hold as rights, but at the time the people in the country did not believe they were infringing on anyone's rights. Therefore these rights are not universal. If you want to call it a Mob then that's fine, I call it a society and societies differ from country to country, and that is the crux of my arguement.

No, by your arguement you are saying rights are universal and therefore easily recognized, then why do they have to be codified in laws and Bills of Rights?

My arguement is that they do because they are not universal, hence my reference to the French Revolution and the Magna Carta, not a Strawman at all.

Because there is nothing that states that they can't, you have not shown me any reason to believe that there is. There is no authority to stop them other than Bills of Rights and Laws which differ from country to country and society to society. If you want to call it "Might is Right" then that's fine, I'll call it "Nature" because no matter how many steel structures and walls we throw up, we're still living it and those natural rules apply.

 

Not that it really matters but just out of curiosity, exactly which part of that document "gives" a right to not be enslaved. The crux of the issue here is why doesn't the new Charter that enslaves half of the population carry the same weight as the previous Charter or Act or whatever? According to your theory of rights, they flow from the government to the people, rights only exist if written into law, so there would be no right to be free from slavery the second that the second Charter is enacted.

The right of self defense, which is inherent to the right to life, allows you to meet force with force. You would be within your rights to try and stop someone from forcibly taking your property, if that person then uses violence against you, you are within your rights to respond in a like manner. Does the government have the right to use force against private citizens for being on supposedly "public" land? No, my argument does not make that claim. Your argument, however, seems to be that any level of violence perpetrated against anyone is a-okay as long as someone wrote down what they were going to do and called it a law.

I haven't read the Wiki article but if your relay of information is accurate then, no, you did not get the crux of the argument. That's exactly why I asked you to read it. It is only a few pages long so hardly a burden to digest, but while short for a piece of literature, it would take me just as many pages of typing to lay out the argument and the logic behind it.

Wouldn't forcing you to give up a kidney be included under "all"?

It is absolutely an issue of your right to life. You own your life and your body. Nobody has a right to remove your organs.

I haven't missed anything. I realize that your argument is, in a nutshell, that "Rights can't be universal because they have been infringed upon many times". When I said that "you have no argument", I should have said that your argument is fallacious. The second clause, that rights have been infringed, does not provide proof for the veracity of the first, that they essentially don't exist.

You're arguing against something I've never said. Universal human rights are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being a human. You keep making arguments against universally recognized human rights which has nothing to do with my argument.

If your argument is simply that there are no "universally recognized rights" then I agree. Never have I stated otherwise. Not everyone recognizes that the Earth isn't flat but that doesn't negate the fact of the matter.

Call it whatever you want: might makes right, nature, survival of the fittest, mob rule. The label doesn't matter, at least you finally admit that this is actually your position. 49 people can be rightly enslaved, arbitrarily killed, raped, whatever, as long as the other 51 people agree. Basically, your argument excuses human slavery wherever it exists today. After all, if there is no authority that stopped the slave owner then he was obviously within his rights to own other human beings. The mafia doesn't infringe on anyone's rights by killing them as long as a higher authority doesn't prosecute them.

I think we both understand each other's argument but we both think the other is fallacious. So, moving on, concerning your argument that there are no such thing as inherent rights and that "rights" are things that are only granted by government authority, how do you reconcile your argument with the fact that your government has adopted the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights that declares that there ARE indeed such a thing as "inherent inalienable rights"?...and I quote (from the very first line):

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"​

If your argument is true then it raises quite the contradiction, does it not? So if we stick to your argument, now that your government has declared that there is such a thing as universal rights that inherently belong to ALL humans, you have to agree with me that there are such a thing as universal rights*, correct? *Note that I did not say universally recognized rights so please don't trot that one out again.

 

I think you're right, we both understand the others arguement, except in your assumption that universal recognized rights and universal rights are different as I don't believe they are and I think that that is the difference between our arguements. You believe there are rights that exist even if they are not recognized and I believe that unless they are recognized we cannot be sure what universal rights actually are and when they are infringed - IE: Just how much 'grey' area is there, or is it like the pornography arguement "I'll know it when I see it".

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"​

I am gonna trot it out again and say that this is exactly what I am talking about. The RECOGNITION of inalienable rights of all members of the human family in that statement suggests that they had to come to an agreement on what they were in the first place. If that is the case, your arguement that those rights have existed throughout history is false and the rights were established over centuries (millenia? depending on how you look at it I guess) of societies learning and evolution.

Now back to the discussion about the OP, are you suggesting her rights under that UN statement were violated by the Canadian government (since that was your original bone of contention)?

 

Make the argument for WHY universal rights equals universally recognized rights. Why can there not exist a right that is inherent to human kind without it being universally recognized? You have yet to establish how the two are the same. For example, that the Earth is round is a universal fact, while not being a universally recognized fact. One has nothing to do with the other.

No, this leads me to believe that you aren't paying attention to my argument. Rights don't rely on any government document, declaration, or proclamation to exist. I brought up the UN declaration merely to shine a light on the glaring contradiction contained within your argument.

Now, kindly answer my question, if rights are granted by the government and don't exist until they say so then how do you reconcile the fact that your government has declared that there ARE such things as universal rights regardless of the fact that they are not universally recognized?