[–] post_men_syndrome 18 points (+18|-0)

We live in a time wherein words like ‘violence’, ‘hate’ and ‘harm’ are used in the abstract, referring to feelings and possibilities rather than literal reality. So when Trudeau talks about not ‘seek[ing] to dehumanize or deliberately hurt’, he is talking about the ‘hurt’ of feeling offended. The ‘hurt’, in this case, experienced by those who believe non-believers deserve to be killed.

But what is more ‘dehumanizing’ than killing a human — literally?

The false equivalence implied here is extremely dangerous.

It's very similar to how abusers justify their behavior: "Sure, I might have given her a concussion, but you have to understand that she hurt my feelings. I'm the real victim here."

[–] [Deleted] 9 points (+10|-1)

TRAs use this logic all the time. if you refer to a violent sex offender as he, they're like "I know she raped and killed women but you just misgendered her which is obviously equally as bad if not 100 times worse ://"

[–] [Deleted] 15 points (+15|-0)

Very good article I thought, thank you for sharing it.

As a French citizen I'm glad to read a Canadian article denouncing Trudeau's groveling to Islamists (Muslim extremists such as but not limited to those who wage terror attacks).

Having lived and taught in England and France, I can see parallels between the treatment in the media and by the public of gender ideology and radical Islam. "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" quoted in the article is something I've heard regarding both. Very concerning when it justifies cancelling authors and of course intolerable when it justifies murder.

Other similarities: calling out radical Muslims will be called islamophobia (by criticising a portion, you are criticising all, goes the argument), just like pointing out that some MTFs are perverts will have you accused of transphobia (by saying some self-IDed MTF will abuse girls and women in toilets, you're supposedly denying trans people's right to exist).

[–] Boudicaea 6 points (+6|-0) Edited

As an American, it has been interesting (and often horrifying) to see this tension with conservative Islamists play out in your country. I would say both of our countries have some of the strongest free speech protections in the world, and are very accepting generally of immigrants. We both have strong traditions surrounding those ideals.

And yet something I have always admired about France is the willingness of French people to call out the extreme misogyny that many religious immigrants bring with them. There is not seem to be the same attitude of just getting on with your life and ignoring it, or explaining it away in the name of diversity, the way we do here. There is nothing wrong and no one should consider there to be anything wrong with merely expressing an opinion. Or trying to peacefully preserve hard-fought and deeply held national ideals through legal means. Religion is not immune from criticism, regardless of which religion it is. And it should not be acceptable for immigrants to demand this in countries they are seeking to join, which have strong traditions of secularism and free speech.

This is not to say that France is a feminist paradise, of course, but I wish we had the same bravery in anglophone countries, particularly mine. I remember in school speaking with a Pakistani woman about bans on headscarves for French schoolgirls. This was a woman who herself was hardly religious, if religious at all, and did not cover her hair. She considered me a bigot and never spoke to me again for being in support of French efforts to not to reinforce misogyny against young girls in school. It's a completely hypocritical attitude, to my mind.

[–] RawSienna 9 points (+9|-0)

“Diversity” can only exist comfortably in a society where fundamental values are commonly recognized to exist and are upheld, valued and shared. Some of these non-negotiables are (or should be) free speech and women’s rights.

When a large population of immigrants doesn’t recognize these, it just ain’t gonna work.

[–] RawSienna 11 points (+11|-0)

Yes, Canada is on a path to hell. Bill C6 is largely under the radar of most people in Canada, and it’s absolutely fucking terrifying that the state will be able to take your 10 year old if you don’t go along with their “gender identity”.

It’s unbelievable.

[–] crlody 10 points (+10|-0)

You might think our progressive political representatives would speak out on behalf of free speech in the face of such horrific violence. And while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada did label the attacks ‘heinous, criminal acts, unjustifiable by any circumstance and an affront to all of our values’, he declined to take a strong position in favor of free speech. When asked during a press conference to respond to a question about the right to show a caricature of Mohammed, Trudeau said that while freedom of expression is all fine and good, there must be limits. It’s an odd way to defend freedom of expression: adding a caveat that places responsibility on those causing ‘offense’, not those who violently silence opinions they don’t like. But indeed this is what Canada has come to.

‘We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet,’ Trudeau argued. ‘In a pluralistic, diverse and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience enormous discrimination.’

This caveat has become a mantra for progressive Canadians who insist ‘freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences’ — a decidedly eerie phrase in light of the attacks in France.

No offense to anyone, but this is a victim mentality. There is nothing wrong with being a victim, but having a victim mentality disempowers you. We recognize this quite easily in other contexts so it's baffling why we don't recognize it here. This is what an abused woman says about her violent husband. She makes excuses for his behavior, saying that it was her fault bc she wasn't careful enough with what she said. This kind of mentality enables abusers. It does not promote safety, which is what Trudeau is profresing it does. Anyone from the outside would tell the woman this is not your fault, your husband is abusive and must be held accountable. You should be free to do as you like without fear of violent reprisal. Trudeau should have told the French people the same thing.

[–] Alexiares 2 points (+2|-0)

Trudeau is far too busy begging after woke points and trying to curry favour with the dying oil and gas industry to do anything but weaken the free speech and human rights protections at this point. It's not a pretty scene in Canadian politics right now.