It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LGBT Activists Arm for Further War on Free Speech

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
In starting this thread, I would like to note first before anyone engages in discussion to please read the whole article and at least some of the links provided.

Please do not use this as a platform to deride others beliefs; instead, let's try to keep the discussion on the topic of free speech and it's possible restrictions due to the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage as proposed in the article.

And for those within the LGBT community, this is not an attack on your orientation, rather a look into the possibilities of what this article describes and if it holds merit.

So please, join the discussion.

To begin, I would like too highlight a certain section of this article, and if there are any Canadians on board please respond in kind to the merits of what this says and articulates.

Canada’s Hate Tribunals Likely Reflect America’s Future

Source

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under ‘sexual orientation.’ It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.






edit on 3-7-2015 by Daedal because: edit



+4 more 
posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

When TF did we get this retarded gestapo? I swear Canada has become more like Nazi Germany than the Nazis during WW2. This is probably another Harper or Wynn braindead idea. So, now they attack opinions, there is no freedom of speech and the government has given everyone, but themselves, the right to STFU. I wonder if they could deport me to Iceland, I'd be trading up.

ETA: Just as an added note to Harpernista, Hitler would be proud.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/3.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: ETA



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Without looking further into the claims the article makes about Canada, I can't really take them into account. Maybe some Canadians can chime in and tell us how much of it is hyperbole and exaggeration.

But as far as legislating public speech, I would hate to see something like that happen. When somebody slings some slurs at me (and it happens), I'd love to see them get some sort of punishment. But then about five minutes pass and I realize that I really don't want that at all. This whole LGBT "agenda" is simply a product of a marginalized and alienated demographic finally getting some justice. To take that justice and create from it an oppressive force is something we should never accept (our definitions of "oppressive" may vary but I'm talking generally).

The reason LGBT folks should not abide by this that we've been the subject of this sort of oppression for quite some time and, instead of getting worse, it's gotten better. Someday, things may change again and I'd hate for any sort of oppression of free speech to be, in turn, used against me.

People tend to forget that measures society puts in place to protect one people are still in place when those people become the targets of those same measures.

But it would sure be nice, on the surface, if it were illegal to be an asshat. Until five minutes pass and you're suddenly the asshat.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
And apparently the US will soon follow. I am waiting now (since reading this thread of the OP) for our President to use his "magick pen" and issue an executive order to create the same.....SHEESH



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

How is asking for Federal protection and anti-discrimination laws silencing free speech?

31 states you can get fired for being GLBTQ+, you can get denied services and housing. we are fighting for adopting to end the blood donation ban, property and also to stop the abuse and killings of GLBTQ+ people

can anyone tell me how that is silencing free speech?

Why is there a need for hate speech anyway, if for some reason you have to be told by the Bible that homosexuals are wrong, why do you need to be vocal in your hate, and than complain how the "Liberal Left' and "GLBTQ+ Agenda' is taking away your rights if someone says something to you...and yes you have every right to do so, you have every right to say it, think it, feel it and express as long as it's non-violent...and people have every right to call you out on it and call you something back..

that article is a bunch of propaganda that those that oppose Equality will take as gospel



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Ahhhhh, the "Nice Law" as I call it.

Doesn't the UK have this too?

Read a recent lawsuit about someone insulting religion - - they lost.

Can I just rent it for one month? You know, just to take a temporary short breather from haters.


edit on 3-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

OP, I have not yet read the Source article. First, I wanted to look at more information about the author. Seeing this other article by that author, I will be looking at the Source article with a great deal of scrutiny. I will be leaving out all interpretation by the author, because she is bigoted. I will only be considering evidence (e.g. quotations from documentation and other people) that she presents.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
That wouldn't fly in the U.S. at all. Make a complaint against me I dare ya. Freedom or Fire.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Honestly i am canadian and i have to say that i have never heard of what the article claims, not saying its not true but you think it would have been talked about.
edit on 3-7-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

As a Canadian, I can tell you that the article is BS. Not every complaint made to one of the provinces' Human Rights Tribunal results in a hearing. In fact, it acts as a Better Business Bureau for those kind of complaints, and attempts to resolve them informally through mediation.

We had a case in British Columbia in 2009 where a man brutally attacked another man in a gay bar for bumping into him on the way to the bathroom, leaving him with permanent brain damage. Despite the fact that gay slurs were slung by the attacker at his victim, it was ruled not a hate crime.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Daedal

How is asking for Federal protection and anti-discrimination laws silencing free speech?

31 states you can get fired for being GLBTQ+, you can get denied services and housing. we are fighting for adopting to end the blood donation ban, property and also to stop the abuse and killings of GLBTQ+ people

can anyone tell me how that is silencing free speech?

Why is there a need for hate speech anyway, if for some reason you have to be told by the Bible that homosexuals are wrong, why do you need to be vocal in your hate, and than complain how the "Liberal Left' and "GLBTQ+ Agenda' is taking away your rights if someone says something to you...and yes you have every right to do so, you have every right to say it, think it, feel it and express as long as it's non-violent...and people have every right to call you out on it and call you something back..

that article is a bunch of propaganda that those that oppose Equality will take as gospel


Maybe I didn't read deeply enough into the OP but I don't think this is about anything aside from the hypothetical scenario of making derogatory speech into something punishable by law.

Based on that and that alone, how do you feel about it?

The struggle to gain full equality is far from over but legislating the words that come out of a person's mouth will only cause harm to everybody involved and slow down LGBT progress in drastic ways.

Personally, I'm treating this thread as an unrealistic hypothetical situation but it's still something we can ponder as a philosophical exercise.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Shocking, but not shocking, that she played the "nuclear family" and procreation card in the first 3 points. I don't know how we can have a logical argument when that type of "evidence" is part of the discussion.

I skimmed the rest of her points, and they have nothing to do with Canadian law. What do any of those things have to do with free speech? The argument is empty. There is nothing, on topic, to discuss.

Edit: I was referring to the author's other article in my first paragraph, and the Source article in the second paragraph.
edit on 3-7-2015 by rationalconsumer because: clarification



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

You said that better than I could, well put.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: rationalconsumer

Don't shoot the messenger man. I'm trying to figure out the same thing.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Some quortes from the article:



The American Unity Fund is a heavily funded new super-PAC looking to blanket the country with LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In effect, those laws aim to wipe out any alternative voice to the LGBT agenda.


Anti-discrimination laws refers to practices, how people are treated, not religious opinions, so no, anti-discrimination laws does not mean no Fdeedom of Speech to express an opposite opinion.


Assuming the Supreme Court signs on to the same-sex marriage meme come June, we can expect to see a noose tightening around both public and private speech, including spontaneous conversation, in America.


How does not letting people force their religious view of marriage on gay couples lead to not having Freedom of Speech? It doesn't. In fact, not letting them force their religious views on others to stop gay people from getting married is protecting gay people's Freedom of Religion.




Sadly, the LGBT lobby has served as a prime catalyst for mindless smearing. Charges of “homophobia” and “transphobia” in identity politics easily give way to other seemingly unrelated phobias diagnosed by the PC crowd, including poverty phobia and “Islamophobia.”


Freedom of Speech gives people the right to call others "homophobic" or "transphobic", as much as it gives the right for people to call others "unnatural" or "abomination".



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I'm Christian and I smoke cigarettes.

Everyone damn well better be nice to me!




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
She could've stopped it here:

"Powers has dubbed today’s intolerant purveyors of leftist causes the “the illiberal left” because, as a liberal herself, she sees them as anything but liberal about allowing a voice to those who don’t toe their rigid line."

IMHO anyway.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Don't worry. Only 4N0M4LY is shooting people (see their comment above).

My point is that there are no possible free speech restrictions due to the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. The author's background gives her no merit at the outset. The article itself, from what I read at the intro and from skimming it, doesn't provide any either.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here's info on UK's 'Nuisance and annoyance' laws (which may be connected to this)


'Nuisance and annoyance' injunctions abandoned after Lords defeat.

Home Office ministers have dropped their attempt to replace antisocial behaviour orders with new injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance in the face of widespread criticism and one of the biggest anti-government defeats in the House of Lords.

Peers voted by 306 to 178 earlier this month to back an amendment by the crossbench peer Lord Dear, a former chief constable, who claimed the move could criminalise any nuisance or annoying behaviour in the streets including peaceful protest, street preachers and even carol singers and church bellringers.

The Liberal Democrat Home Office minister, Norman Baker, said he would table amendments next Monday that would restore the original Asbo test under which "harassment, alarm or distress" must be caused before a court can grant an injunction.

The new injunctions form part of the antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill and can only be granted by a court. Baker said the test of engaging in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person", which has long been used to secure court injunctions in noisy neighbour cases in social housing, would continue to be used and extended to the private housing sector, but would not be used as a general test.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

the article never actually states anything, i read it again and find it even more lacking than the first. it just throws out a bunch of "Anti-American" buzz words about the GLBTQ+ Agenda, but doesn't have any references besides her interpretation of things.. which is her opinion but not fact.

how do i feel about 'Word Policing'?

i'm not about 'Word Policing' i mean i've been on the receiving end of slurs that are embarrassing to write again, but i understand you can't police 'words' or their context behind it. but that doesn't mean it's right for people to talk that way, and that doesn't mean there wont be some kind of consequence of someone saying something back to them, or even getting fired.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join