this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
87 points (93.1% liked)
Canada
1663 readers
6 users here now
English
This is a community dedicated to Canada and Canadians!
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to Canada or Canadians
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Français
Il s'agit d'une communauté dédiée au Canada et aux Canadiens !
Règles
- Les postes doivent être pertinentes pour le Canada ou les Canadiens
- Pas de désinformation
- Pas de contenu NSFW
- Pas de discours de haine, de sectarisme, etc.
Related Communities / Communautés associées
Community icon by CustomDesign on MYICONFINDER, licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Twitter doesn't have space for nuance. The MP gave a speech about how being able to share diverse perspectives and opinions is important and a Canadian value. That's what got a standing ovation, not Charlie Kirk.
Incorrect. She praised Charlie Kirk as an "outspoken advocate for faith, family, and freedom".
A conservative defending "diverse perspectives" is the liberal (idealist) concept of free speech -- strong hypocrisy. I know little about Canada, but in the US, for example, the regime allows "free speech" for racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia; but anti-genocide protesters are brutally repressed by the police. Students are expelled; diplomas are canceled; immigrants (including legal) are deported. Assange was detained for over a decade and almost died in prision. Edward Snowden is in political exile. The Black Panthers were massacred. McCarthyism. Federal funding is cut from universities that allow political dissent.
The regime allows speech that does not destabilize the regime. The US regime allowed Charlie Kirk to spread his bile because that bile posed not threat to the ruling class.
Diverse perspectives doesn't include spreading hate like kirk did
Yes, yes it does. That's why it's so hard to be the good guys.
No, it goes against society, it doesn't, and it can't be given equal weight to hate
That's an absolutist position. It only works if there's a singular definition of hate that is universally accepted.
If you aren't careful with how this is addressed, you end up with people being arrested for calling someone a muppet.
The response to hate cannot be to muzzle it, but to call it out and make sure its impact is understood.
Once you open the door to muzzling people, the next guy in charge can abuse the shit out of that. A measured, thoughtful approach has to be the answer.
In a similar vein to what is considered "reasonable" in courts, is how it needs to be done yes it can be abused, it already is. If someone said we need to kill all russians, they are all bad and I want everyone to know how they are the cause of all bad things, should we allow that person to continue? We can call them out, and we do, but then they have followers who will inevitably start attacking russians, or perceived russians. That's why it can't be accepted.
I don't disagree that it can't be accepted if they are inciting violence, that's already a different classification of speech. If he or anyone else ever openly advocated for violence against anyone they should be shut down and brought up on charges.
And the fun part is, people like kirk lead people to these views points, like stand by and stand down. You need to be able to read between the lines. Kirk talking about abortion being like the Holocaust will incite some of his listeners to action, which starts small with protests and grows into bombing abortion clinics
That's a leap. If you start banning speech based on what might happen if it's interpreted a certain way by extremists, the game is lost.
It's not a leap, it's exactly what happens, it's why kirk was shot, it's stochastic terrorism.
Not the first time their "diverse perspecitives" that are important Canadian values and got a standing ovation include fascism, racism etc.
then she should have left Kirk out of it
I mean I just think this is a naive way to look at it. That speech wasn't removed from Kirk. It was clearly about him. It was clearly about lionizing him. It was clearly about making a martyr of him. It was clearly about celebrating him. Remove him and that speech isn't given. You can't take out the motive and context of the speech and pretend it's something entirely different.
Yeah man are you not understanding that I'm talking about him in the context being dead? That's the whole point. It's hard to martyr someone who's alive, though God knows conservatives try that enough.