Post by Eist on Aug 5, 2012 21:10:19 GMT -5
You linked to the same thing I did
Anyway, aside from whether minority issues should be settled governmentally or socially (I have argued previously that the majority should not be making decisions on solely minority issues), it seems we have an issue as to whether it is acceptable to allow hate speech unchecked. Your link "The death of free expression" states that
"The content of this letter was offensive, but it caused no harm, physical or otherwise.
Boissoin’s letter talked about his perception that there was a “homosexual agenda” at work in society. "
I would argue that there is a very large harm, both physical or otherwise to society. Not directly, of course -- it's just a letter -- but indirectly through proliferation of hatred towards vulnerable minorities. We see an example of this today in Wisconsin with a shooting spree in a Sikh Temple. While this is the work of one man, there is a very strong feeling off ill-well towards in particular Muslims (and, as we can see here, a clear misunderstanding of other religions in general). Hate speech has very real negative effects on society, and specifically vulnerable minorites, and I do not believe it should be allowed unchecked. There is a line somewhere.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue the merits or otherwise of the cost incursion scheme of the Canadian or Ontario Human Rights Commissions. Quite frankly, I don't really care. I just wished that you cited it originally, instead of using unfounded claims to support your agenda. You have cited something that kind of backs up what you said, and for that I applaud.
In saying this, this thread is about gay marriage.
Anyway, aside from whether minority issues should be settled governmentally or socially (I have argued previously that the majority should not be making decisions on solely minority issues), it seems we have an issue as to whether it is acceptable to allow hate speech unchecked. Your link "The death of free expression" states that
"The content of this letter was offensive, but it caused no harm, physical or otherwise.
Boissoin’s letter talked about his perception that there was a “homosexual agenda” at work in society. "
I would argue that there is a very large harm, both physical or otherwise to society. Not directly, of course -- it's just a letter -- but indirectly through proliferation of hatred towards vulnerable minorities. We see an example of this today in Wisconsin with a shooting spree in a Sikh Temple. While this is the work of one man, there is a very strong feeling off ill-well towards in particular Muslims (and, as we can see here, a clear misunderstanding of other religions in general). Hate speech has very real negative effects on society, and specifically vulnerable minorites, and I do not believe it should be allowed unchecked. There is a line somewhere.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue the merits or otherwise of the cost incursion scheme of the Canadian or Ontario Human Rights Commissions. Quite frankly, I don't really care. I just wished that you cited it originally, instead of using unfounded claims to support your agenda. You have cited something that kind of backs up what you said, and for that I applaud.
In saying this, this thread is about gay marriage.