[DrCaleb]

It flummoxes me. If there were operatives of Al Queda invading the ranks of our armed forces and recruiting new members, the outrage would be palpable.

But Nazis? Meh.

[Newsbot]

Title: Rights group urges defence minister to turn cases of racism in the ranks over to police
Category: Military
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2020-09-04 11:32:04
Canadian

[llama66]

Also, serving members of the Military fall under the Defense Act, ergo.. They must be investigated by and tried under the Military Justice System.

[Thanos]

Rights group wrong, because it's not illegal to be a racist. It's not criminal to have any kind if thought, no matter how dark and evil the particular thought might be. Only the violent acts themselves that racists commit are illegal, and they're already amplified in terms of punishment by existing hate crimes laws. So this "rights" group is basically advocating punishment for what they consider to be thought-crime. And ignoring the reality that the employer these days, especially an arm of the government, will rapidly throw out of service anyone who announces these kinds of thoughts in public or is found to belong to a racist organization.

The consequences are already there, but the hard left wants any thought that it's opposed to criminalized. Take this far enough and the woman in DC (a genuine hero IMO) who refused to raise her fist in support of BLM, even though she's already a BLM supporter who attended protests against police brutality, could one day be marched up the steps of a guillotine for not being "correct" enough. This is where the left always kills itself and disgraces it's own cause, in that the will ALWAYS depart from the logical real-world things that can be done and instead turn to purity testing. Idiots.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Rights group wrong, because it's not illegal to be a racist.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is right to call out:

$1:

"Change needs to happen. It needs to be decisive," Kirzner-Roberts told CBC News. "We need to end this culture of tolerance for neo-Nazis and neo-Nazi activities within our Armed Forces and it needs to be done now."

Because they have seen where tolerance of Neo-Nazis in the ranks of a countries armed forces leads. They aren't saying it's illegal, they are saying it's not appropriate for serving members. Go be nazis somewhere else.

The rest of your post T, is just push back for what you see as intolerance leading to more opposite intolerance. But that has never happened, anywhere but the USA.

[raydan]

If someone is Neo-Nazis, do I actually need another reason to kick him out of my house?

[Thanos]

Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.

That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.

That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?

Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.

No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.

That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?

Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.

No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.

Not to piss in your pickles but, Canadian military personnel don't take an oath of allegiance to serve the "State". They take an oath to serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, not the Canadian Gov't.

0:

12342702_926529854106704_1667416666996982463_n.jpg [ 32.26 KiB | Viewed 709 times ]

But one of the reasons they may be trying to send these clowns to a civilian authority is that that the military hasn't got a specific charge for racism which makes it difficult to prosecute. And, the reason for that mindset is because before the "Charter" any openly racist asshole would have had an accident that would have left him with injuries that would have helped him become much more tolerant of other races.

But the problems you guys are discussing can be taken care through other sections in the NATIONAL ACT. One being " Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline. Or perhaps Cruel or Disgraceful Conduct. Neither one is ideal and that's likely why these clowns are being Dishonourably Discharged.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-nat ... ences.html

But my guess is that the way the military is dealing with these assholes is just being used an excuse to remove the powers of punishment from the military and give it to the ciy lawyers so they can implement the Charter and remove the NDA making the military even more subservient to their whims.

[Thanos]

Putting the military under civilian justice administration is something the hard-left has wanted for decades. And they've always been quite open to admitting as to why, which is so they can prosecute any Canadian soldier who ever fires a weapon at an enemy for both hate crimes and war crimes. It would bring the military into a position where it could be regularly attacked by the human rights tribunals, with the only option being that the government would have to stop engaging in any sort of overseas deployment in order to keep Canadian military personnel from being persecuted on whatever bogus charge could be dreamt up against them, up to and including sending them for a kangaroo court trial in The Hague by the ICC.

Slippery slope? Oh yeah, does it ever fucking exist.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

Any organization, including/especially the military, has the right (and obligation) to kick extremists of any sort out of their ranks. That's a social and occupational consequence when someone choses to be a monstrous asshole.

That still doesn't mean there's any justification for making racist thought a crime. Or even for racist utterances out loud. You guys keep telling me about this so-called slippery slope over government monitoring of cellular communications or internet activity, as traitors like Edward Snowden try to make looking for terrorist activity into the equivalent of looking for innocents to put in the gulag. If you're believers in the slippery-slope argument then isn't the criminalization of any thought or belief, no matter how odious said belief might be, the slipperiest slope out of all of the entire lot?

Firstly, the "Slippery Slope" argument is a logical fallacy and therefore incorrect. No one here is using it.

No one is making racist thoughts illegal. Where are you even getting that from? What is illegal is acting on those thoughts, and discriminating against or acting violently toward a minority. That's why these people are being tossed out of the military, for organizing against the state they have taken an oath to serve.

Not to piss in your pickles but, Canadian military personnel don't take an oath of allegiance to serve the "State". They take an oath to serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, not the Canadian Gov't.

The Queen of Canada is "The State". She is one branch of government, along with The Judicial, and the Legislative branches.

$1:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-herit ... about.html