• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Speech Police: Canada hiring 55 people to monitor ‘hate speech’

Actually the part of the story that I was concerned about is your government hiring people to decide what is hateful. 1984.

Uttering threats is legal in the US
 
Of course, a source you don't accept. When you have something besides attacking the messenger let me know.
When you're actually capable of addressing something, YOU let ME know.
 
When you're actually capable of addressing something, YOU let ME know.

What does that have to do with your unfounded criticism of the source? Try a little harder not to offend people.
 
Do you support and defend Muslim hate speech as well?

What is 'Muslim hate speech'? Are you really willing to go down this road? Because it ends up at Charlie Hebdo: anyone who criticizes the prophet must be dealt with.
 
What does that have to do with your unfounded criticism of the source? Try a little harder not to offend people.
Your source couldn't even provide the fact that threats were made (allegedly), nor could it provide a name for the (alleged) culprit.

It is classified as "moderately trustworthy" for accuracy of information but is also known for spreading its own bias in wording and reporting.

In other words an opinionated blog-like publication the likes of which (right, left, centre or pastafarian) I never give a hoot about.

THAT'S what this has to do with everything.

Considering your propensity for using the likes of these as well as using "rags" that go all the way to telling outright lies and spreading exactly the kind of hate that is the topic here, quit whining about your "sources" being constantly treated with the disdain they deserve.

You have so far provided not a single piece of factual information on the actual occurrence, let alone any substantiation to speak of.

And if you want to tell others here how to be, remember that charity begins at home, in this case perhaps with you trying to be a little less dishonest (Quebec mosque shooting thread is all one need refer to).
 
Your source couldn't even provide the fact that threats were made (allegedly), nor could it provide a name for the (alleged) culprit.

It is classified as "moderately trustworthy" for accuracy of information but is also known for spreading its own bias in wording and reporting.

In other words an opinionated blog-like publication the likes of which (right, left, centre or pastafarian) I never give a hoot about.

THAT'S what this has to do with everything.

Considering your propensity for using the likes of these as well as using "rags" that go all all the way to telling outright lies and spreading exactly th kind of hate that is the topic here, quit whining about your "sources" being constantly treated with the disdain they deserve.

You have so far provided not a single piece of factual information on the actual occurrence, let alone any substantiation to speak of.

And if you want to tell others here how to be, remember that charity begins at home, in this case perhaps with you trying to be a little less dishonest (Quebec mosque shooting thread is all one need refer to).

Did it happen in Quebec? That is one fact. Anything else?
 
That's not proof, that's not even anything. Just dismissive, baseless namecalling that is NOT AN ARGUMENT nor is it a contribution in any way.

Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly!!!

And that's why the source in question here is finding precisely that treatment.
 
no thanks, reputable outlets being preferred.

making online threats the way Antonio Padula did is not to be taken lightly, especially since that's what the Quebec shooter did as well before carrying the threats out.

Of course, a source you don't accept. When you have something besides attacking the messenger let me know.



When the House of Commons returns next week, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s M-103, which has the unobjectionable title of “Systemic racism and religious discrimination,” will be somewhere on the order paper and up for a vote.

It calls on the Heritage Committee to commence a study on eliminating Islamophobia. The study could then recommend laws to pursue this nebulous goal. If they do, there’s a good chance they’ll be dragnet laws that criminalize anyone who dares stand up to the many unsavoury parts of orthodox Islam.

..denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act ..
Canada’s so-called anti-Islamophobia motion is nothing but trouble | Furey | Can

Be careful, you might soon be guilty of Mooslum Crimes in Canada.
 
Yeah this is ridiculous. The principal of censoring people who criticize other religions and coercing apologies from them is a tactic often used in authoritarian strongholds like Turkey. Obviously draw the line at threats of violence however just because someone curses a lot in a social media post doesn't mean they are going to go out and stab a bunch of Muslims.
 
So, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has always included "Reasonable Limitations" of Freedom of Speech, specifically around Hate Speech. This is not new, this is not "enforcement of Sharia", so pull your heads out.

Thankfully when our documents were created, we understood that words can be weaponized, and put provisions in there that do not allow undue harm to come from Freedom of Speech, something totally broken in the American 1st Amendment. The clear correlation between the asshat who shot up the mosque in Quebec and the anti-Islam circle jerk our pathetic alt-right fringe is currently engaged in on social media makes this initiative necessary, not any "enforcement of Sharia"... If they could even begin to muster an ounce of basic human decency and manners this wouldn't be necessary.
 
Actually the part of the story that I was concerned about is your government hiring people to decide what is hateful. 1984.

BS article got that wrong as well, claiming it was the Canadian govt was hiring when actually it was the SPVM who were hiring the 55 people who as part of their job (note not the sole purpose of their job) to monitor social media.
Montreal police Chief Philippe Pichet said Tuesday that since Sunday night's attack at a Quebec City mosque, there has been a spike in reports of hate-related comments.

The force is hiring 55 people whose jobs will include monitoring social media sites for hate speech.
Montreal police charge Kirkland man accused of online hate speech targeting Muslims - Montreal - CBC News

When you consider the fact that social media is being used by individuals and groups to attract members to terrorists orginizations and that several Quebecers have left for the middle east to join ISIS this isnt a bad thing.
 
BS article got that wrong as well, claiming it was the Canadian govt was hiring when actually it was the SPVM who were hiring the 55 people who as part of their job (note not the sole purpose of their job) to monitor social media.

Montreal police charge Kirkland man accused of online hate speech targeting Muslims - Montreal - CBC News

When you consider the fact that social media is being used by individuals and groups to attract members to terrorists orginizations and that several Quebecers have left for the middle east to join ISIS this isnt a bad thing.

Muslims in the West are not the victims. The quicker you realize that, the better.
 
Muslims in the West are not the victims. The quicker you realize that, the better.

Absolutely irrelevant to his post. However, if you don't like what he wrote but can't refute any of it, might as well toss out an irrelevant non sequitur.
 
Absolutely irrelevant to his post. However, if you don't like what he wrote but can't refute any of it, might as well toss out an irrelevant non sequitur.

Thanks for telling me. Next.
 
Thanks for telling me. Next.

I can't find any mention of that group, 'Agenda Vigilance', anywhere else nor any mention of 55 people being hired to monitor hate speech.
Got a link for anything besides 'redalert' or whatever that site's called?
 
Muslims in the West are not the victims. The quicker you realize that, the better.

What does that opinion have to do with the article being BS?
 
Back
Top Bottom