|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
I think you are right, but not for those reasons. The average Canadian voter is pretty parochial, and is less engaged let alone interested in aspect such as global affairs, international trade, defence, etc. Our history of letting just about every government since the 1970s gut the military tells me this is a voter/taxpayer/citizen issue rather than a party one. When I hear the Conservatives say that they are going to lower interest rates, I know that they know that the average voter isn't engaged with matters like the global economy and trade.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Well, this has to make Canada look good.
www.durhamregion.com
‘I support Hamas’: Durham College condemns alleged student who posts video saying ‘I would love it if they would do it again and again...’
College reacts to video after student posts online praise of Hamas actions
www.durhamregion.com
Richard White
Senior Member
Well, this has to make Canada look good.
‘I support Hamas’: Durham College condemns alleged student who posts video saying ‘I would love it if they would do it again and again...’
College reacts to video after student posts online praise of Hamas actions
She should be expelled.
picard102
Senior Member
It's the appropriate amount of insight for a clickbait article.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Being excluded from emerging groupings is clickbait now?
Partisanship really does tint the goggles. We both know what you'd say, if this was happening with a CPC government.
picard102
Senior Member
Yes, an article about a conservative donor being concerned about emerging groupings that offer "no tariff cuts or market access" in a conservative paper is entirely partisan clickbait.
Apparently we "both" don't. Because I wouldn't care.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If a TFW/IS, deport. If my non-citizen backside made such a rant I’d expect nothing less.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Apparently, you're the only one who doesn't see your own partisanship.
Or maybe, you don't care at all about foreign policy, in which case why are you in this thread?
kEiThZ
Superstar
1) Free speech.
2) Nobody should be deported unless they've committed a crime.
If her speech has crossed the threshold into incitement or hate speech than maybe she should face consequences. Otherwise, advocating for penalties to intimidate someone against saying something unpopular is fundamentally anti-democratic. It's just cancel culture of another form.
@AlvinofDiaspar Please consider moving these posts to the Trudeau Liberals thread. Not immediately relevant to foreign policy.
Richard White
Senior Member
Free speech has limits. Supporting a terrorist organization is over those limits.
I can go on an anti-semetic tirade here and claim that certain ethnic groups are not pulling their weight but that's just not ok.
Just because you believe in something doesn't mean there aren't consequences if you shoot your mouth off.
picard102
Senior Member
I have a kettle I'd like you to meet.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Unless they have broken some law(s), there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to deport them.
I would go as far as to say that anyone advocating for such is anti-democratic.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes.
This is the key quote:
By not merely endorsing the pre-existing attack, but explicitly endorsing future attacks (acts of violence/terrorism), I would think that does indeed cross the line of hate speech.
Now I'm leery of hate laws......and a defender of free speech; but if advocating for mass killings doesn't cross the line, we definitely need to repeal the law.
***
In terms of penalty; for a non-citizen, deportation might seem more apt and less costly than jail.
lenaitch
Senior Member
As distasteful as I find her statement, I'm not sure it crosses the line regarding our terrorism and hate speech laws. Whether those laws should be changed (in a manner consistent with our Charter, of course) is another discussion. Saying she "would love if they did it again" doesn't strike me as anything more than a cheerleading opinion. It doesn't offer support as defined in the Criminal Code and it would be difficult/impossible to prove that the comments are 'inciting'.
We are all allowed to stand and fall on our opinions, stupid or otherwise. I'm unclear on both her status in the country and with Durham College. If she is on a student visa, her continued presence is obviously more vulnerable. than a citizen or PR. If she has publicly linked her post or online presence to the college or merely to the fact that she is a student there, there is much legal precedence that allows it to take action against acts and statements that reflect on its reputation.
Our speech on this site, for example, is not only governed by legislation but the policies of the site owners. We can be disciplined for all sorts of activity and comments that don't offend the law but run counter to the rules of the site
We are all allowed to stand and fall on our opinions, stupid or otherwise. I'm unclear on both her status in the country and with Durham College. If she is on a student visa, her continued presence is obviously more vulnerable. than a citizen or PR. If she has publicly linked her post or online presence to the college or merely to the fact that she is a student there, there is much legal precedence that allows it to take action against acts and statements that reflect on its reputation.
Our speech on this site, for example, is not only governed by legislation but the policies of the site owners. We can be disciplined for all sorts of activity and comments that don't offend the law but run counter to the rules of the site