this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
108 points (94.3% liked)

Canada

7184 readers
326 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It makes me very uncomfortable to make speech and holding opinions (whether factual or not) illegal.

It sets a dangerous precedent and is a double edged sword. What if we’d declared criticizing internment camps or the 60’s scoop as hateful prejudice against Canada? What if the next government makes speaking against oil illegal?

Education and acknowledgement is the answer. We need to continue making everything about residential schools public. It should be easy to see evidence of their practices, know who ran them, how many children died and where they’re buried, etc. It should be obvious this happened and was awful.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This slope is not slippery at all. Denying holocaust has been a crime since ~~2002~~ 1994 in Germany and yet Germany had no issues with upkeeping free speech in the ~~two~~ three decades since.

edit: oops it's actually older than I thought

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

TIL it's that recent. I know there was at least some anti-Nazi laws from the start.

The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don't think it's a stupid thing to worry about, even if ultimately this is the right choice.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It gets slippery depending on who is in power, which is exactly what we have to defend against.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well, any group in power has incentive to abuse it, and I think history shows they always will given the chance (at least in the long run).

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

I agree completely, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to worry about

Sure. I wouldn't like to see climate change denialism criminalized in this century and I'd be pretty worried if any government pushed for it - but we're so so far away from something like that happening. We're way closer to going backwards in reconciliation.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Um... the trend is to criminalize research on climate change if conservatives win in November.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's my point. The far-right of this country is already working to destroy opposition and we're closer to implementing climate change denialism policies and going backward on reconciliation than we're close to having free speech at danger. And in any case, it's not like the precedent doesn't exist already or that the far-right needs the precedent to grow fascist.

There is basically one thing that people should prevent fascists from doing, and that is getting hold of the state apparatus. Once the army, police, health, education and social services are under far right control there is no horror we can put past them.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Censorship should make us uncomfortable for all those reasons, but I think history has shown hate speech can't be beaten with just reason. Whether this specific proposal is worth the precedent is another question on top of that, though.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’m not against it for the tolerance/intolerence aspect, I’m against it for the potential weaponization.

Could a future government say β€œwoke” speech is hate speech? That’s why I think we need to be careful.

[–] Strykker@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

Canada already has laws restricting hate speech, adding a law that adds a very specific definition is not going to lead down a slope more than the current system does.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago

I don't disagree.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Some say the cucumber tastes better pickled.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

How are the lawsuits against the church going?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I’d do better with just making such people laughing stocks and pariahs. I feel like criminalizing the behaviour gives it an aura of legitimacy and power it doesn’t deserve.

[–] MetaCubed@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Paradox of intolerance to some extent. Residential school denialism in politics and media is still negatively impacting public perception of indigenous people.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The US isn't doing so hot by just making the fascists "a laughing stock". More severe consequences are needed. However, there's MUCH more misinformation they need to target than just this.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's not merely because it's disinformation. It is an attempt to harm a recognizable [protected] class of people.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those are the same thing. All modern disinformation has some political end involving oppressing minorities.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

~~Nah, take a page from the Germans and make it a mandatory part of the curriculum of every school board, across every province, build memorials and fund films and cultural programs to institutionalize the memory. It will take 10 years but it will work better than any criminalization.~~

EDIT: See comment below. Also, TIL: Holocaust Denial is criminal in Canada, too.

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You say that like holocaust denialism isn't actually also a crime in Germany.

They've done both.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Ah, then I'm wrong.

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

My mother was abused in a residential school. If there were anyone still alive that had anything to do with this I would gladly watch them set on fire... I am beginning to feel the same way about people who deny this happened.

[–] fourish@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Given the way the political climate is going, in Canada, criminalizing residential school discussion at all is more likely.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago

We need less criminalization of speech, not more.