Lobster Boy (was: This Jordan Peterson Guy)

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't really follow Schiff on the free speech question. First he acknowledges "yeah he could be fined" which seems like an admission that it's a curtailment of free speech, then he dismisses Peterson's claim that he could be sent to jail for not paying the fine with "that's not the same thing." Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

Of course it makes a difference. We have the same sort of argument made here. "X number of people in prison for not paying their TV licence". They've been fined and sent to prison for not paying that fine.

[ad hoc]

It would still be true. And Peterson knows that full well

[ad hoc]

No this is nonsense. He can't be sent to jail for not using the correct pronouns. End of story.

[ad hoc]

I think Schiff says exactly what I'm saying (that he maybe could be fined. And if one refuses to pay a fine - any fine- one could eventually land up in jail. But if one did end up in jail it wouldn't be because of the original reason you got a fine)

It should also be pointed out that Peterson despite his refusal to identify people as they request, has not to my knowledge been fined at all still less sent to jail, more's the pity

[ad hoc]

The point is that Peterson is claiming that if he doesn't use the correct pronoun he could be sent to jail for that. No he could be sent to jail for contempt of court. He is making an emotive appeal to try and make himself into a persecuted victim (ironically given his shtick)

[ad hoc]

What's wrong with it apart from it being a lie you mean?

[ursus arctos]

Emotive appeals are this month's alternative facts

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see it as a lie. Just as "jailed for not paying TV licence" is usually a lie.

[WOM]

What he's doing is the equivalent of me saying to a drug dealer "Hey, stop selling weed in front of my house" and the drug dealer saying "Hey...I'm just trying to earn a living to feed my kids. Do you want my kids to starve to death...is that what you're saying???"

He's being intellectually dishonest, and Schiff's point is that he ought to not only know better, but know much, much better and in fact advocates knowing better as part of his intellectual rigour. The fact that he jumps from a to z and skips all the other point in between is the lie. And yes, it's a lie.

[WOM]

How many do there need to be for his statement to become true?

[San Bernardhinault]

Of course, point (a) wasn't the imaginary refusal to pay the non-existent fine.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is what our Citizens Advice Bureau say, probably similar in Canada.

If you’ve been given a magistrates’ court fine it’s important you pay it. If you don’t, the court can:

take the money from your wages or benefits

send bailiffs to your home to collect what you owe - you'll have to pay bailiff's fees as well as your outstanding fine
‘register’ the fine - this means the fine will stay on your credit history for 5 years and might stop you from getting credit in the future

In extreme cases you could be put in prison, but normally only if the court thinks you’re deliberately not paying.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I expect that's referring more to people with assets who are claiming they have no money. Somebody like Peterson would, I expect, have money deducted from his wages.

[Benjm]

He's more about the gate receipts than the wages these days.

[Tubby Isaacs]

So he might get fined for getting caught disobeying a law he doesn't agree with?

See also everybody ever done for possessing dope, going too fast on a stretch of road where they think the speed limit ought to be higher.

[Lang Spoon]

I’m lost again. Our friend Rod Liddle is applying the same martyrology to “Tommy Robinson” being banged up for being a dick.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I’m lost again. Our friend Rod Liddle is applying the same martyrology to “Tommy Robinson” being banged up for being a dick.

Yeah, I thought of that too. Broke the law twice and activated a suspended sentence.

[ursus arctos]

You understand that the principle is different in Canada than in the US, right?

Canada has hate speech laws, for example, which have survived constitutional challenge.

[Lang Spoon]

Proportionality and public policy can impinge explicitly on rights that JP would see as absolute. At least within Canada/non US Anglosphere and Europe. The only absolute right under Irish law may be freedom from torture and slavery. And even those absolute rights derive from the ECHR and not the Irish constitution.

JP and other douchebag Libertarians like the South Park creators/contrarian Spiked or clickbait Neu Spectator might disagree with this but more than half a century of jurisprudence would crush them anyways.

[Lang Spoon]

I am tired

I am weary

[Lang Spoon]

I could sleep

For a thousand years

[Lang Spoon]

“Some people” can gtf. Maybe if Ford sweeps Ontario and this becomes a national thing you will have US style interpretations of rights by pliant judges in the new Hell once Trudeau’s Blairism collapses, but for now such interpretation of law is a minority sport on the fuckface right, funded by questionable fuckers (whether Canada or UK, the same mindset that wants to drag the UK from the ECHR, about the only good thing post war Britain helped set up at a European level). The Proportionality test is well established law (fuck, I think it may even be from Canadian case law). The degree of restriction a law may place on the rights of citizens or corporations must be proportionate to the public interest need. The law should only exist if there is no other alternative outside legislative compulsion. Genuinely Fair and Balanced rather than the Constitutional Originalism madness that might prevail down at the US Supreme Court soon.

[Lang Spoon]

Free Speech is a legal issue with legal implications. If you are interested in “teh free speech” implications you’d better know the legal background, son.

[Lang Spoon]

An yeah, that is needlessly patronizing and riling. I blame fucking Ramos and piss water tasting but 5% cans of Grolsch.

[Lang Spoon]

US is not Canada. Canada is free to legislate whatever it likes without the permission of the world’s worst Centre/slightly left party. And I include the party that once nominated Michael Ignatieff as its leader.