• wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    It makes me very uncomfortable to make speech and holding opinions (whether factual or not) illegal.

    It sets a dangerous precedent and is a double edged sword. What if we’d declared criticizing internment camps or the 60’s scoop as hateful prejudice against Canada? What if the next government makes speaking against oil illegal?

    Education and acknowledgement is the answer. We need to continue making everything about residential schools public. It should be easy to see evidence of their practices, know who ran them, how many children died and where they’re buried, etc. It should be obvious this happened and was awful.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This slope is not slippery at all. Denying holocaust has been a crime since 2002 1994 in Germany and yet Germany had no issues with upkeeping free speech in the two three decades since.

      edit: oops it’s actually older than I thought

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        TIL it’s that recent. I know there was at least some anti-Nazi laws from the start.

        The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to worry about, even if ultimately this is the right choice.

        • Jakeroxs
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It gets slippery depending on who is in power, which is exactly what we have to defend against.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Well, any group in power has incentive to abuse it, and I think history shows they always will given the chance (at least in the long run).

            • Jakeroxs
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I agree completely, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          The slope gets slippery at some point, though, right? I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to worry about

          Sure. I wouldn’t like to see climate change denialism criminalized in this century and I’d be pretty worried if any government pushed for it - but we’re so so far away from something like that happening. We’re way closer to going backwards in reconciliation.

            • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s my point. The far-right of this country is already working to destroy opposition and we’re closer to implementing climate change denialism policies and going backward on reconciliation than we’re close to having free speech at danger. And in any case, it’s not like the precedent doesn’t exist already or that the far-right needs the precedent to grow fascist.

              • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                There is basically one thing that people should prevent fascists from doing, and that is getting hold of the state apparatus. Once the army, police, health, education and social services are under far right control there is no horror we can put past them.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Censorship should make us uncomfortable for all those reasons, but I think history has shown hate speech can’t be beaten with just reason. Whether this specific proposal is worth the precedent is another question on top of that, though.

      • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not against it for the tolerance/intolerence aspect, I’m against it for the potential weaponization.

        Could a future government say “woke” speech is hate speech? That’s why I think we need to be careful.