A bit of a weird post....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
    Originally posted by Paul Bonham
    ....is it not logical to also protect those WITHOUT mental disability?




    There is no size provision in the legal definition of an identifiable group in the Canadian Criminal Code hate speech provision.

    You have lost the debate and are resorting to desperado measures. So sad, to use a Trump expression.
    No, if the definition of an identifiable group was so broad that it could include almost an entire population they would not have drafted legislation that defined specific categories, they would have simply made hate speech illegal without specifying identifiable groups. "Distinguished" by means which particular categories are included, not which categories are outside of these group that in some cases would mean almost everyone else.

    The few judges I have known in Canada exercise common sense when interpreting laws and tend to reject twisting words to be understood so literally that it is silly.

    However, if you want to delude yourself about "winning this debate" carry on.
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 2nd March, 2019, 02:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      The most amusing thing about this supposed "hate speech" is that he is arguing that by telling the truth about socialist atheistic regimes and the evil they have wrought on humanity is in itself promoting hate. No, it is pulling back the curtain and revealing the evil that men do in the service of that false god of socialism.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

        No, if the definition of an identifiable group was so broad that it could include almost an entire population they would not have drafted legislation that defined specific categories, they would have simply made hate speech illegal without specifying identifiable groups. "Distinguished" by means which particular categories are included, not which categories are outside of these group that in some cases would mean almost everyone else.

        Says you, and you have zero authority.

        Why do you think there are lawyers in this world? So that they can pinpoint exactly what a law intends. The hate speech law intends to protect identifiable groups, no matter the size. If it's almost an entire population, it's almost an entire population. If the lawyers and legislators didn't want that, they would have included language to prevent it. Duh!

        There is a reason the lawyers worded it "distinguished by religion" rather than "distinguished as religion". The latter wording would intend what you are arguing, that a group has to BE a religion to be protected. That was not what was intended, so they worded it "distinguished by". Any good lawyer could make this argument in court and win the case. It's just common sense, and I totally refute your claim that judges don't take the wording of laws literally. Again, that is precisely there are LAWYERS involved. Meaning MUST be precise otherwise the law is useless.

        And they have to have identifiable groups, otherwise the courts would be clogged up with every little quibble under the sun.

        I notice that Vlad in his responses is talking about socialism and socialists and is making his arguments based on his interpretation of history. But the specific thing he wrote here on Chesstalk that I say violated the Canadian Criminal Code is that he specified atheists (as well as liberals, which we agree are not an identifiable group). And he didn't talk about historical events, he talked about CURRENT atheists and what their agenda is, and it was both unprovable and very heinous because he said they all (as a group) have a very pernicious agend towards childre (he was very specific and I won't repeat exactly what he said because my post would be removed).

        So forget about his socialism arguments, this is about atheists which are a protected group. He made specific and hateful statements about atheists and should be convicted on that basis. But I'm not going to make trips to Canada to have charges brought against him, rather I was hoping there was someone in the CFC who would care enough about having a hatemonger as CFC President and would want to do something about it. Getting anyone in the CFC to care about this is hopeless, it's like getting the GOP to impeach Trump. Isn't going to happen.

        The only way it could happen would be if chess sponsors were made aware of his posts, including his latest gem condemning all Democrats in the U.S., and if said sponsors withdrew their sponsorship based on his posts. Neil Frarey would be perhaps the only person who could make such a thing happen, and I'm not sure he would even want to do so.

        I would think, Sid, that you would try and be on the right side of this, which is the moral side. Are you offended that atheists should be protected by these laws? I of course realize that in the U.S. free speech overrides hate speech, Canada has forged a different path at least in spirit by criminalizing hate speech. Perhaps you are against the law itself.
        Last edited by Paul Bonham; Saturday, 2nd March, 2019, 04:41 PM.
        Only the rushing is heard...
        Onward flies the bird.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paul Bonham
          Are you offended that atheists should be protected by these laws?
          If a law existed like this I would not be offended by it although I would consider it a difficult law to enforce as it would be problematic as to what group is identifiable precisely. For example Albert Einstein never believed in a personal God or in a God in the conventional way as we see in organized religion but identified with the Jewish people and seemed to view nature itself as type of God. Many have different ideas that are difficult to categorize as theists or atheists so the group is not particularly identifiable.

          By the way if you want to submit a complaint you do not need to fly to Canada. The RCMP has a website where you can submit your complaint. So if you want to make a fool of yourself I will bet you a donut that they will tell you the same thing I am telling you, Atheists do not fall within the legal definition of an identifiable group. You have said I have no authority to have an opinion on this so go ahead ask the authorities. I can assure you they will not parse words "distinguish by"to your liking, they will simply decline to take a case that would be a stretch to prosecute.

          Anyways, speculating how the Canadian legal community would interpret "distinguish by" is a complete waste of time when all you have to do is go to the authorities and ask them. I would think in your situation your time would be far better spent researching online stem cell research and MD rather then posting your grievances with Vlad over and over again here on Chesstalk and engaging in frivolous debates.
          Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 3rd March, 2019, 03:46 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
            If a law existed like this I would not be offended by it although I would consider it a difficult law to enforce as it would be problematic as to what group is identifiable precisely. For example Albert Einstein never believed in a personal God or in a God in the conventional way as we see in organized religion but identified with the Jewish people and seemed to view nature itself as type of God. Many have different ideas that are difficult to categorize as theists or atheists so the group is not particularly identifiable.

            By the way if you want to submit a complaint you do not need to fly to Canada. The RCMP has a website where you can submit your complaint. So if you want to make a fool of yourself I will bet you a donut that they will tell you the same thing I am telling you, Atheists do not fall within the legal definition of an identifiable group. You have said I have no authority to have an opinion on this so go ahead ask the authorities. I can assure you they will not parse words "distinguish by"to your liking, they will simply decline to take a case that would be a stretch to prosecute.

            Anyways, speculating how the Canadian legal community would interpret "distinguish by" is a complete waste of time when all you have to do is go to the authorities and ask them. I would think in your situation your time would be far better spent researching online stem cell research and MD rather then posting your grievances with Vlad over and over again here on Chesstalk and engaging in frivolous debates.

            LOL you are getting even MORE desperado. You give an example of Albert Einstein as someone who "maybe" was an atheist, how about all the people who "maybe" are Christians? Who "maybe" are Jewish? Who "maybe" are transgender or gay or lesbian or who are mixed race, mixed ethnicity? These people exist... yet the Canadian Criminal Code still defines these specific groups knowing that they exist also.

            There are always going to be people who are "maybe" members of any particular group. It doesn't mean the group doesn't exist and isn't identifiable. What a laughable argument you are making! The hate speech law exists AND its authors know that these groups exist, including atheists.

            Even if we limit the identification of atheists as only being members of an atheist organization -- such as Canadian Atheist (https://www.canadianatheist.com/), or American Atheist (https://www.atheists.org/) -- that still leaves them as an identifiable group. And guess what, the members of those groups all are IDENTIFIABLE BY RELIGION. They are all members of no religion at all, which makes them identifiable by religion.

            Your statement that atheists (presumably meaning ALL atheists) are not particularly identifiable is HILARIOUS. Overgeneralize much?


            I have no idea what the RCMP would do with a complaint about Vlad Drkulec by someone from outside Canada. Besides that, we are getting away from the main point, which is that Vlad Drkulec is demonstrably a hatemonger. That is the thing we should be focused on. A slap on the wrist from the RCMP is one thing, but a forced removal from the CFC presidency plus a notification to all Windsor area chess parents (assuming Vlad still lives in Windsor) would be more effective.

            Vlad coined the term "thought police" but really in the case of this law it is "hate police". We must remove hate as much as we can from society, especially where it affects children. Would you not agree to that goal? If you would, then stop your silly and desperado defense of Vlad and realize that he should be punished for what he is if we are to call ourselves a civilized society. The fact that in this Trump era we are allowing hate to grow by leaps and bounds is why I express my opinion that it can only end in a second American civil war. People like Vlad, I suspect, would welcome that, a chance to actually take up arms against the people they hate.

            Oh, and I did not say you don't have the authority to express an opinion. If you want to say the Earth is flat, you can do that, but it doesn't make the Earth flat. Your opinion is not authority. Unlike you, I have used the logic of linguistic meaning to show that "distinguished by religion" includes atheists. You have responded with no logic, only opinion about judges and the RCMP.

            Only the rushing is heard...
            Onward flies the bird.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paul Bonham
              stop your silly and desperado defense of Vlad
              As usual you twist words. I said from the beginning of this thread that I did not advocate the particular statement that Vlad made. I simply do not agree that technically you have a case. As i said ,stop wasting your time trolling here and go ask an authority. You seem to desperately want to have the last word so go for it but I am no longer responding to you on this subject.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                As usual you twist words. I said from the beginning of this thread that I did not advocate the particular statement that Vlad made.
                Well let me ask you this then, since you seem to know the exact statement we are discussing: should that statement by Vlad disqualify him from being CFC President and / or teaching chess and possibly "other things" to children? Forget about technicalities, just answer based on what his statement revealed about his inner character.

                And if you do deign to answer, think about this also: the Las Vegas mass shooter of October 2017 was obviously a man consumed by hatred, apparently not even for one particular group, just for people in general (or perhaps Americans in general).... yet no one who knew him, even those who knew him intimately, had any clue that he held in this hatred. At least with Vlad we have a statement that REVEALS his hatred. And yes, I do believe Vlad Drkulec or anyone who expresses pure hatred as he did is capable of becoming such a mass shooter. The Las Vegas shooter was not a one-off corner case. There have been and continue to be many others just like him.

                We lock people up with mental disabilities for both their protection and the protection of society. I believe similar should be done to all those who express pure hatred such as Vlad did in 2017, unless it can be shown they were temporarily "not themselves" due to something like drugs or a head injury or some other outside influence. But going into a rage and expressing such hatred, the rage itself would not qualify as such an influence.


                Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                I simply do not agree that technically you have a case. As i said ,stop wasting your time trolling here and go ask an authority. You seem to desperately want to have the last word so go for it but I am no longer responding to you on this subject.
                Yeah, that's what happens when you express an opinion and turn out to have no logic behind it and in fact it goes against logic. Busted!



                I intended this thread to be my last here, and to explain why my promised chess variant hasn't yet appeared (although I am not giving up). I allowed myself to get diverted into this side discussion, mainly because I believe very strongly that Vlad Drkulec is a problem that needs to be addressed. I've never even met the guy, except I guess I played chess against him way back in the early 90's, I have no recollection of him from that time. He states I was offended when he (Vlad) didn't offer any support for my chess variant... No such thing ever happened, he's like Trump just making stuff up. I may have said something like "The CFC should offer organizational support to chess variants" but I never asked Drkulec for any support for my particular variant. It was always my intention that this variant would be done outside of any existing chess federation.

                So it isn't personal, it is based on the character that I believe one who leads others and teaches others, especially children, should have.

                I would ask anyone reading this and aware of Vlad's statement(s) to think: would you want Vlad as a schoolteacher, teaching his version of history to your kids or the kids of someone you love? If yes, then perhaps you yourself harbor the same kinds of hatred he does.

                And by the way, when I say "his version of history", yes, it is true that socialist dictators have been responsible for deaths of countless people. But so also have been right wing fascist dictators, so also have been religious leaders and religion itself, so also have been white supremacists and other racists. To focus only on socialists and atheists and to direct such hatred towards them and to blanket literally all of them as killers and wanna-be killers because of past crimes committed by others in far away lands, this is the crime that Vlad commits. He carries this hatred around with him wherever he goes. It doesn't go away even if he hides it. He exposed it, and we all know it's there. For those of you who haven't seen his statement, which I made a screen shot of in May 2017, let me assure you, it was everything I've claimed here and more.

                I don't care what anyone else thinks. I've said my piece and now.... I'm outta here. I'd wish you good luck, but there is no luck in chess. Chess teaches us that actions and lack of actions both have consequences.
                Only the rushing is heard...
                Onward flies the bird.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Paul Bonham
                  I've said my piece and now.... I'm outta here
                  Good, as mentioned your time is better off spent researching stem cell therapies as applied to MD rather then a pointless argument online as to how the hate speech authorities would understand the words "distinguished by" that could be easily discovered by simply asking them. I don't support directing hatred at any group whether it is legal or not.

                  Frankly I found it offensive that for the longest time every other post with me you would find ways to segway into remarks about my religion. I especially found offensive your remark "as if Israel matters more then America" which is considered by the American Jewish community to be a classic antisemetic remark that suggests that Jewish American's put Israel first over America.

                  You made no attempt to apologize to me instead posting the last offensive comment mentioned above and suggesting that your harassment was within the board's rules when I brought it up. You are a pompous little hypocrite. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
                  Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 5th March, 2019, 02:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sid, what do you expect from a guy that goes off the deep end defending socialists and national socialists (aka Nazis) as a protected class. The American left is anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli as shown by their private and public actions and reactions. Trump who is a great friend of the Jewish people is falsely labeled an anti-Semite when he is probably the best friend they ever had in the White House. The man's son in law, his daughter and his grandchildren are Jewish.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X