One of the country's leading human rights groups is urging Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to turn all suspected acts of racism, white supremacy and hateful conduct within the Canadian Armed Forces over to a specialized task force of military police office
Posted By:
2020-09-04 11:32:04
The consequences are already there, but the hard left wants any thought that it's opposed to criminalized. Take this far enough and the woman in DC (a genuine hero IMO) who refused to raise her fist in support of BLM, even though she's already a BLM supporter who attended protests against police brutality, could one day be marched up the steps of a guillotine for not being "correct" enough. This is where the left always kills itself and disgraces it's own cause, in that the will ALWAYS depart from the logical real-world things that can be done and instead turn to purity testing. Idiots.
Rights group wrong, because it's not illegal to be a racist.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is right to call out:
Because they have seen where tolerance of Neo-Nazis in the ranks of a countries armed forces leads. They aren't saying it's illegal, they are saying it's not appropriate for serving members. Go be nazis somewhere else.
The rest of your post T, is just push back for what you see as intolerance leading to more opposite intolerance. But that has never happened, anywhere but the USA.
That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?
Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.
That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?
Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.
No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.
Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.
That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?
Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.
No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.
Not to piss in your pickles but, Canadian military personnel don't take an oath of allegiance to serve the "State". They take an oath to serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, not the Canadian Gov't.
12342702_926529854106704_1667416666996982463_n.jpg
But one of the reasons they may be trying to send these clowns to a civilian authority is that that the military hasn't got a specific charge for racism which makes it difficult to prosecute. And, the reason for that mindset is because before the "Charter" any openly racist asshole would have had an accident that would have left him with injuries that would have helped him become much more tolerant of other races.
But the problems you guys are discussing can be taken care through other sections in the NATIONAL ACT. One being " Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline. Or perhaps Cruel or Disgraceful Conduct. Neither one is ideal and that's likely why these clowns are being Dishonourably Discharged.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nat ... ences.html
But my guess is that the way the military is dealing with these assholes is just being used an excuse to remove the powers of punishment from the military and give it to the ciy lawyers so they can implement the Charter and remove the NDA making the military even more subservient to their whims.
Slippery slope? Oh yeah, does it ever fucking exist.
Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.
That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?
Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.
No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.
Not to piss in your pickles but, Canadian military personnel don't take an oath of allegiance to serve the "State". They take an oath to serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, not the Canadian Gov't.
The Queen of Canada is "The State". She is one branch of government, along with The Judicial, and the Legislative branches.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-herit ... about.html