In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The question is: Are some groups more equal than others? How does one get to be more equal?

It's a pseudo question.

Virtually any rule of equal distribution of goods, rights, or obligations will entail concomitant inequalities.

For example, specifying that every person should have the equal right to a workplace in which they can function despite disabilities equalizes that while entailing an inequality in the distribution of resources to achieve it (disabled people will require more resources to attain a state of equality).

Of course right wing scoundrels will immediately point out that such a rule leads to inequality, which is a pathetically silly argument since what is at stake is what things should have priority for equalization over others.

I suppose it's as much the fault of activists who campaign for "equality" without specifying what particular equality they favour. In fact it is a logical feature of every rule that it manifests equality in the sense that it is applied the same to everyone.

A rule that says "all Jews to concentration camps" if applied consistently to everyone, is applied equally, but has different consequences for different people; just like a rule that doles out wheelchairs for those who need them.

Equality just isn't a useful notion in most cases.

[Lincoln]

But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

[Ben Kenobi]

No one is going to stop Obi-Wan from expressing his religious views on homosexuality.

This country does not value free speech when it disagrees with the majority opinion. I have seen far too much censorship just on my supposedly 'Liberal' campus.

In fact, just today we had a clubs day booth to attract members to our prolife club. By 3pm, the SAC committee came and requested that we take down one of our pictures, showing aborted babies in a dumpster, with the caption, 'human garbage'.

They cited 'complaints' as proper justification for them to take down the picture over our table.

Now, I ask, if I had a picture protesting the holocaust and used a picture of mass Jewish graves, would they ask me to remove the picture because of complaints?

This is why I fear this bill, why do we need hate crimes legislation at all?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fortunately, or not, expressing hateful thoughts against an identifiable group can result in a criminal conviction in Canada.

Extending the indentified groups from women, Hebrews, and visible minorties to include homosexuals does not make Canada any more Orwellian than we have been for the past 10 or more years.

In practice, it is only extreme cases that are prosecuted. There was a teacher who instructed holocaust denial in high school class rooms, and a few others who have been prosecuted.

Hate motivated crimes are also taken into account during sentencing, IIRC.

There is always an unfortunate effect of these rules in that any group that is particularly zealous in its anti-defamation stance tends to be treated with kid gloves just to avoid unpleasantness.

This is what happens with radical feminist groups on campus - they complain so much that people end up being prosecuted for frivolous offences and legitimate speech is suppressed. I think that is a legitimate complaint, but the alternative is worse, so I guess we have to live with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

When fat people, or WASP men, become the targets of violence based on hatred to any significant degree, then they too could come under the protection of our anti-hate legislation.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
But now the justification is that since there are protected groups that are already more equal then that is an established doctrine as you said. So now everyone wants to be more equal. Too bad we just can't all be equal. Where does this special equality end? Can fat people be more equal if they are called "fatty" too many times?

It isn't being "more equal".

If I say that all persons should pay a flat tax then that is equal in one sense, but unequal in the sense that it imposes a harsher burden on people with lower incomes (due to diminishing marginal utility).

If we decide that burdens should be equalized by a progressive tax scheme, then it follows that some people will pay more. They may want to say that the others are "more equal" but that is just silly because they are absolutely equal given the standard we have chosen to use.

Similarly we can argue that people have an equal right not to be abused in the street. This will mean some people get gagged. Which is more important, the rights of racists to inflict racism on others, or the right of minorities to be free of such abuse. It's clear that equalizing the former and gagging the latter leads to a better overall situation.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, it's so inherently unequal to want to not be murdered and beaten. Them ******s should just shut up and take their beatings.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither


When fat people, or WASP men, become the targets of violence based on hatred to any significant degree, then they too could come under the protection of our anti-hate legislation.

Absolutely correct. Hence the law equalizes in this respect.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This country does not value free speech when it disagrees with the majority opinion. I have seen far too much censorship just on my supposedly 'Liberal' campus.

In fact, just today we had a clubs day booth to attract members to our prolife club. By 3pm, the SAC committee came and requested that we take down one of our pictures, showing aborted babies in a dumpster, with the caption, 'human garbage'.

They cited 'complaints' as proper justification for them to take down the picture over our table.

Now, I ask, if I had a picture protesting the holocaust and used a picture of mass Jewish graves, would they ask me to remove the picture because of complaints?

This is why I fear this bill, why do we need hate crimes legislation at all?

I agree, this isn't fair. Jewish student organizations and homosexual rights and pro-abortion activists tend to have the ear of the administration these days. It allows them to get away with all sorts of pathetic evil crap.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Them ******s should just shut up and take their beatings.

Some of them like S&M.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon



...Similarly we can argue that people have an equal right not to be abused in the street. ..

Forgive me for cutting the above out but that is the essence of my argument. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
Some of them like S&M.

Well it is fun.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Well it is fun.

But definitely not tolerated by scientific socialism.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Forgive me for cutting the above out but that is the essence of my argument. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law.

Not everyone is liable to be a victim of certain crimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
But definitely not tolerated by scientific socialism.

Sez you. I'm with Alexandra Kollentai on the revolution and sexuality.