doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com COOPER ARMS

Yeah, Steyn's sometimes hard to take, like Hitchens or our Barbara Amiel. Their opinions provide a way of measuring my prejudices, though.

Where Steyn provided a service to Canada in the Maclean's cover story, however, is that media, libertarians and other interest groups are trying to change our federal human rights act which makes it a federal offense to publish anything that is "likely to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."

That's considered a vague and subjective limit on free speech---beyond the "reasonable limits" on speech envisioned by Parliament and the Charter--- which, in the above case, was used by the Canadian Islamic Congress to attempt to punish those who make statements or opinions with which they disagree.

We'll get it right the Canadian way: muddling through!

Quote:
"In Canada, the issue is an inherent human right of expression"

So what you are telling us King is I could come up to Canada walk into a crowded public facility and start yelling "FIRE" with out any concern whatsoever?
Jim

Yes, it does. The fundamental truth of a free society is that the exercise of freedom is always burdened with responsibility in the exercise thereof - the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others - otherwise society is not free. When the exercise of a person's right impinges on the rights of others, that right terminates. Real freedom requires respect for the rights of others in society.



Other way around, King. In my country, everyone has rights. Stockholders are people too, people with the same rights as everyone else. The stockholders of Cooper, through the Board of Directors they selected, hired Dan Cooper in good faith to be president of Cooper. At the top of the job description for the president of any corp is the responsibility to protect the investment of the stockholders. Dan Cooper recklessly subordinated the rights of those people to his own, resulting in extreme hazard to their investments, which he had accepted personal responsibility to protect in exchange for their money. Dan Cooper failed utterly to respect the rights of others that he was specifically responsible for.

If, as you say, only certain classes of people have rights in Canada, which I strongly doubt, well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. "Worker's Paradise", eh? I've never been under the illusion that freedom is as well protected elsewhere as it is here. I'm sure glad I'm an American.

So you believe genocide is acceptable to the USA members of this BBS? I can find no threadss promoting it so I don't know if it was condemned or supported by the members. I would guess that it received condmenation. I think you intentionally insult us.

I have seen racists posts condemned by the members here before the moderator deleted the thread.

I haven't read Mr. Steyn so don't know what he says about 9/11.

If I support winning the Iraq war does that me a supporter of genoicide? If don't like Mr. Obama's voting history on gun issues and have doubts about his new found zeal for gun rights am I supporting racism.

You paint with a broad brush I think.

Best,

Mike

Mike,
You should read what Steyn writes before inferring anything or writing the foregoing. Do so and you will see that your post is rubbish,
Best,
K.

I repeat; You paint with a broad brush I think

Best,

Mike

Some further thoughts.



I see. So you're saying Canadians have no property rights? I always suspected that yours wasn't really a free country, but I had no idea....



Hmmm. So, unilaterally abrogating a solemn fiduciary responsibility is considered the moral high ground and a "civic responsibility" in Canada? Yikes!!!



Well, if your representations are correct, it's clear that it doesn't in Canada. Unfortunate, but understandable. We Americans don't expect foreigners who haven't experienced it to understand what freedom is.

I did not anticipate leaving the notion that only certain classes of people have rights in Canada. In this country, citizens may exercise their rights---yelling "fire," of course, is beyond reasonable limits of expression everywhere, Jim---without fear that they can be punished for doing so.

It would be against the law to fire a pro-choice employee of a condom manufactur if that person campaigned publicly against abortion or picketed with placards at the company gate. I said in my first post that I didn't know how it works in the United States. This is how it works in Canada.

The dollar has nothing to do with it. Should the pro-choice evangelical's activities affect the condom manufacturer's bottom-line, that's a price of freedom of dissent. Nothing's stopping the manufacturer from his right to have his say with five-colour ads or airtime. He can't deprive employees of their livlihood.

The will of the American and Canadian people is expressed through their legislatures. Your great republic is expressing its will today.The United States of America was born in dissent. It may choose a son of slavery with middle name Hussein for its highest office. It's the American way. Let freedom reign.






.

Just taking you at your word, King. If stockholders have no rights, well, then only certain classes of people have rights.



I think you're flying a kite here, King. An employee running a machine making condoms and a corporate president with a clear fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders are clean different things.



That's absurd. Of course they can. With rank and file employees, they can lay-off when it becomes clear that business is going to decline. With corporate officers, they can make key management changes to increase profitability.

yeah, and i'm sure glad others aren't.




king, i'm surprised you can even dress yourself. obama's not a "son of slavery". at least not in this country. his father's from kenya and his mother is white.

your notions of liberty and freedom are typical of the socialist left. they ignore all aspects of personal responsibility and accountability. yes, people have the rights to do some things. that does not absolve them of the responsibility of their actions. the ditzie chicks are the classic example of this. they think they can behave any way they like but shouldn't have to suffer any repercussions.

your attitude is no different. an employee may have rights as an individual but that does not mean his rights can trample on those of his employer.

and for the record, constitutional rights to not apply in every venue. this board for example is the "united states of dave weber". he can allow whatever or whomever he chooses on this board and can also remove them. no one has a "constitutional right" to post to the doublegunbbs. cooper had a "right" to support any candidate he pleased. cooper firearms had a "right" to remove him as an employee.

"he can't deprive employees of their livelihood." ??!!?? that's a stand-alone statement you made; no qualifiers. i hate to tell you this but no one has a RIGHT to a livelihood. if that statement were true, no one could ever be fired for anything.

roger