Some foolish ideas just refuse to die. Ideas like the claim that laws against murder are an infringement on freedom, but a very acceptable and necessary infringement. It never takes long for someone to take that preposterous argument to the next level, and before you know it there’s no freedom for anyone.
You will see throughout our constitution, yes you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good. Everything needs to be balanced.
“If your views on other people’s identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace then I believe that it is our job, as legislators, to restrict those freedoms, for the common good,” Ms O’Reilly added.
Unfortunately, the Irish Green Party’s views on the nature of freedom would be right at home here in Canada. Our entire constitution is based on the idea that every individual has freedom…until a majority of the tribe decides that you don’t.
It doesn’t have to be a majority, apparently.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that the rights enshrined in the Charter exist to protect the individual from “the tyranny of the majority”. But of course, they don’t.
Actually Dennis, you’re wrong. It is the natural evolution of the argument. It is also the natural end point of moral relativism, which leads into “might makes right” or “only the strongest should survive”. This is what religion, in particular Christianity, prevents, by putting in voluntary restrictions on human behaviour based NOT on what the ‘human’ feels or thinks, but based on an external threat of eternal punishment from a loving but dangerous God.
Christianity takes away human judgement and instills a separate moral code on humanity.
““If your views on other people’s identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace then I believe that it is our job, as legislators, to restrict those freedoms, for the common good,” Ms O’Reilly added.
My views on other people do not make their lives unsafe, or insecure. I have no control over other people’s feeling of discomfort, only they have control over that, and someone’s discomfort has no impact on the common good.
Which freedom is she recommending we restrict? My opinion of other people? How does she plan on doing that? These people don’t even make sense.
Free speech is the open door through which oppressed people walk to find their liberty.
But having made much progress through the centuries, some would now slam that door shut.
All social progress begins as offensive speech.
That’s the definition of “democracy”.
Mob rule.
Yes indeed. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner!! So much for democracy.
Greens are no different than inquisitors as they claim omniscience (that’s what “environmentalism” is) and therefore the notion of uncoerced voluntary exchange of ideas is out of the question. Green theocracy is another variant of dystopian totalitarianism.
It’s being done for the common good. Okay. If I want to speak to “the common”, who do I call?