Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

[Guid]

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...

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

 

[Guid]

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.

And I don't believe that because it will just not happen.

Guid

 

[pgp_protector]

Should the Freedom of Speech Always be Allowed.

Nope, just try to say (#$&($# in my house and see how free you are to use it

 

[Guid]

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!

The patient can get a second opinion and probably should anyway. The doctors do oversee themselves .. so if there is incompetence they are removed. But incompetence is a different issue from deciding to participate or no in an immorality. Most of these immoral dilema issues occur in situations where there's time to make decisions .. unlike in an emergency where they simply follow procedure.

Guid

 

[TeddyKGB]

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.

 

[Guid]

It's very reassuring that you can forsee the only medical dilemmas that occur will be non-critical.

You are angry because I don't think doctors should be forced to perform procedures they find unethical.

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.

Guid

 

[YamiB]

Obviously freedom of speech needs to be restricted when it presents danger to people like the popular 'fire' example. I think this also extends to inciting violence so I think that it should be at the very least questionable to carry signs saying God says to kill [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] because they means that they want people to go kill homosexuals.

I also think that doctors do not have the right to refuse treatment on religious and moral grounds. It's the same as the idiot pharmacists who think they should be able to refuse selling birth control because of their beliefs, it is part of their job. If they can't preform their job they should look for a different line of work. For example if a doctor is morally opposed to abortions, work in a different medical field.

 

[B'alaam]

And I don't believe that because it will just not happen.

Guid

Can you teach me to see into the future too?
Please?

 

[Guid]

Can you teach me to see into the future too?
Please?

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

 

[TeddyKGB]

You are angry because I don't think doctors should be forced to perform procedures they find unethical.

Even if I was, you can't hand-wave away my argument merely by alerting the world about my state-of-mind.

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.

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.

Part of that aforementioned code of ethics involves medically helping those who need medical help. Deciding which procedures are medically helpful has been placed under the purview of ethics groups and organizations, a state-of-affairs which I hope you can agree is superior to "every doctor for him- or herself." If a doctor finds a particular procedure ethically objectionable, there are ways to avoid doing those procedures that are clearly preferable to refusing on-the-fly.

 

[Guid]

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

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.

 

[BigBadWlf]

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 Nihilist]

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.

I dunno. It still makes me uncomfortable that any government takes as its jurisdiction the thoughts and feelings of its citizens, whether public or private.

 

[TeddyKGB]

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.

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.

Is there an overarching point here that supports your contention that doctors should be free to perform whatever procedures they want?

 

[Verv]

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....

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.

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.

Yeah, and I think it is a better punishment to have these people look like idiots than put in jail.

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.

I agree that a sign which advocates the notion that you should go out and kill a homosexual should be illegal as it constitutes a physical threat but I think anything else should be legal.

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.

I think that you should be able to bring the vicious hatred in public -- what a better way to raise people against their stupid cause? I think confronting things head on usually just helps all people come to the conclusion that these guys are dolts.

 

[B'alaam]

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

(bold entirely mine)
O gee no, I wasn't talking about a complete med staff, I was talking about a JW doctor (as were you in this specific conversation). You might want to re-read the leadup to my post.
And yes it is a prediction on your part and quite a hardline prediction as well
Allow me to quote you-
"it will just not happen"
Again, forgive me for emphasizing what you actually said, but you did say it
Not prophecy, but hardline prediction

So to state once again your feeble response to me-
Can you teach me to see into the future too?

Because that is exactly what you are pretending to do.

 

[Guid]

[quote ] [/quote]

Again, it simply is not going to happen in Ontario. Go to any big city emergency room in Ontario and you will know full well that it's not going to happen. So please try, when you post, to have a least a semblance of a grip on reality.

 

[Guid]

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

 

[quatona]

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.

Presuming they lose.

Yeah, and I think it is a better punishment to have these people look like idiots than put in jail.

Punishment is not my interest.
But - sometimes I find myself wondering how and why I deserve the punishment of being pestered with their hate speech.

 

[TeddyKGB]

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

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.