Maybe you can get that kick because don't hold any unpopular opinions (yet). But as those laws imply, when you express your opinion, it is now potentially up for review by the government and you are potentially up for jail.
Guid
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I get a kick out of the odd American who comments that Canada is in danger of becoming a dictatorship or we're in danger of losing our rights etc...
So your suggesting that a Doctor who works in a busy emergency room has the right to refuse all blood transfusions for trauma patients, all because he is a JW and he believes it is a sin?
I know you don't believe that.
Nope, just try to say (#$&($# in my house and see how free you are to use itShould the Freedom of Speech Always be Allowed.
What if the Doctor places his religious convictions over the needs of his patient?
No over sight? Who cares? Surely that's not what your suggesting!
It's very reassuring that you can forsee the only medical dilemmas that occur will be non-critical.And I don't believe that because it will just not happen.
It's very reassuring that you can forsee the only medical dilemmas that occur will be non-critical.
Can you teach me to see into the future too?And I don't believe that because it will just not happen.
Guid
Can you teach me to see into the future too?
Please?
Even if I was, you can't hand-wave away my argument merely by alerting the world about my state-of-mind.You are angry because I don't think doctors should be forced to perform procedures they find unethical.
A doctor has a specific code of ethics, based in part on the Hippocratic Oath, that covers situations which could result in a net harm. It is therefore not purely an act of morality when an Iraqi doctor refuses to do gratuitous harm.Saddam Hussein thought he should force the doctors of Iraq to do things they considered unethical. He wanted them to cut limbs off people convicted of theivery. They refused. I agree with the doctors that they have the right ot refuse to do what they consider morally unethical whatever the political ideology of those in power are, be it right-wing, theocratic, or the left-wing.
Even if I was, you can't hand-wave away my argument merely by alerting the world about my state-of-mind.
A doctor has a specific code of ethics, based in part on the Hippocratic Oath, that covers situations which could result in a net harm. It is therefore not purely an act of morality when an Iraqi doctor refuses to do gratuitous harm
Maybe you can get that kick because don't hold any unpopular opinions (yet). But as those laws imply, when you express your opinion, it is now potentially up for review by the government and you are potentially up for jail.
Guid
According the Canadian law Criminal Code of Canada(Section 318 & 319) those opinions you are upset about not being able to express include the promotion of violence, murder and or genocide against members of minorities. Do you support such actions?
But not to worry. Despite your attempt to paint your self and your position as somehow being the victim (rather than the perpetrator) or discrimination anyone who has looked at the issue will know you are not in danger of going to jail. The law you are decrying clearly states that you may freely continue to speak hatefully about a minority and not per prosecuted if:
The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.
The stricture against abortion has been excised, along with the stuff that prohibited surgery. And apparently the Oath itself has been largely replaced with an ethical code determined by the Geneva Convention.The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbade abortions, BTW. It's an interesting document, gave nod to Appolo and other somesuch, and emphasized the no-harm nature of the profession. Killing just doesn't seem to have any place in it, AFAICT:
"Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."
Where or where does dirty abortion fit in there? Or any other nasty eugenics practice? No where.
Clearly, doctors are expected to act according to a clear conscience.
However, I suspect that there´s a problem with prohibiting hate speech:
Hate, if you are not allowed to express it, is likely to grow; and people who are prohibited from express their hate have a tendency to become a group that takes comfort in feeling oppressed and persecuted. This is potentially dangerous....
Legislation aside, I think it is a good idea to - along with the importance of freedom - establish the paradigm that freedom comes with obligations. Like: If you want the freedom to talk make sure you have educated yourself on the subject.
In the UK it's illegal to incite violence against anyone. I am not sure whether Phelps' "God says to kill f*gs" would qualify as incitement to violence - but I kind of hope they would. I am grudgingly happy for him to be allowed to wave his signs wherever he chooses, but I draw the line at suggesting that one should kill homosexual people. The fact is that there's enough violence against gay people in this country and in America anyway, without some moron making it worse by waving signs encouraging it.
The Laws that the Canadian Police would have used to shut down Phelps sad protest, would likely have been;
1) Causing a disturbance
2) Public mischief, failing to allow persons lawful enjoyment of property
3) Breach of the peace
4) There is a law about not being allowed to disturb a religious service, but I don't know much about it.
It seems that Phelps was aware that with all the National and political attention his group received, the Canadian Laws would have come down on his hate group like a sledge hammer on a mosquito.
I like the balance we have in Canada in relation to free speech and prohibiting hate speech.
Say what you want in public, but keep your vicious hatred within the privacy of your own home.
Contrary to what many Americans may believe, hate crime charges are exceptionally rare in Canada.
(bold entirely mine)The med staff refusing to give blood transfusions in the Emergencies of Ontario is just not on the horizon. It's not prophecy, just reasonable assessment of the situation. So to answer your feeble sarcasm posing as two questions: no and no.
Guid
Presuming they lose.Totally. Plus, it accomplishes little to nothing. It makes it seem like a touchy, dangerous subject and makes them think of it as a topic that is not discussed because they are right or because they possess some dangerous truth.
It is far better to let them go and debate and lose their debates and perhaps learn in the long run.
Punishment is not my interest.Yeah, and I think it is a better punishment to have these people look like idiots than put in jail.
Except it doesn't forbid abortions and hasn't for many years. It is also secondary, in any case, to the question of whether an existing ethical system precludes a doctor maiming prisoners. Since both the Hippocratic Oath and the Geneva guidelines do so, your example is therefore not emblematic of the need for unfettered moral freedom amongst doctors.You are the one who brought up the Hippocratic Oath to support your point. I just pointed out that it pretty much forbade abortions. Now you don't like it! lol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?