In 1945 bums were there to be whacked.

Bogiephil1
"BTW, doesn't Canada have "hate speech" laws that forbid saying anything "derogatory" about certain protected groups? I understand it's against the law to assert that the Holocaust never happened and is punishable by law. Any thoughts on that?"

The little maple flag by my name doesn't mean that I am either expert in, nor a defender of, Canadian laws and mores, nor am I interested in getting drawn into this particular, and particularly ugly, subset of the law.

If we recognize only state coercion as a brake on our behaviour, then we are precisely the sort of antisocial beasts who require and/or deserve a leviathan state. Medici more or less nails it, AFAIC. For the longer version, I suggest Russell Kirk.

This thread has gotten far offtopic albeit interesting. Have a few thoughts of my own.
Another "political correctness" imbroglio involves the Confederate flag and stature or monuments honoring Confederate leaders or those who served in the Southern army. Some say those statues should be removed from public parks and the like, that any display of the Confederate flag is racist,and so on.
I am a descendant of Confederate soldiers. I also voted for President Obama and consider Martin Luther King one of our greatest Americans. Like soldiers in all wars those who wore the gray were fighting for a variety of reasons, for Southern independence,because they felt their homes were threatened,or because their neighbors went to war and they felt they should go too.They did not feel they were fighting for the preservation of slavery,many of them,any more than a draftee in the Vietnam War felt he was fighting some great international Communist conspiracy.
And many who display a Rebel flag now do not see themselves as racist, rather as good ole' southern boys who love NASCAR and country music and Southern rock.Who love the Dukes of Hazzard and its 1969 Dodge Charger with the flag on top. I too am a Dukes fan though its Daisy in her short shorts thats the best looking of all!

I agree completely but, (you knew there was gonna be a "but", didn't you?) mores and social constraints can't forbid people from saying offensive things or having unpopular opinions (they can only influence them, either positively or negatively); only government can by making laws and establishing legal punishments for violating those laws. "Can't" and "Shouldn't" are two very different things. "Can't means you can be prevented from saying or doing things and punished for doing/saying them if you do. Your example above is excellent. One CAN say the word "nigger" but one SHOULDN'T. The social opprobrium might be considerable and affect your future behavior but at least you won't be fined or jailed for doing so. Nor should you, under any circumstances.

I didn't mean to draw you into a position where you felt you had to defend Canadian laws and mores. That last bit was an addendum that I probably shouldn't have added. You might have noticed the "USA" after my name. I feel very strongly about government abridging freedom of speech in any way and I realize that I may have sounded combative about it to you. I apologize if I made you uncomfortable. I didn't mean to.

I agree with most of this but I think internet trolls are worth mentioning especially after someone has died and they are posting vile things on message boards. Not sure that a prison sentence is the answer for these sort of sub-human types. Maybe a compulsory course in advanced political correctness would help them become model citizens! Either that or a good kick up the arse to help them rediscover their humanity.

Bogiephil1
Thanks for clarifying; I appreciate it.

I feel very strongly about free speech as well; very nearly an absolutist, depending on how you interpret that. I suspect we actually agree on the substance. While I believe the state must not restrict speech, I also believe civilized people much willingly restrict themselves, individually, by exercising common sense, decency, and civility, and collectively, by censuring through social means that which crosses certain boundaries. ("You have the right to write that book, but I have no obligation to publish it/stock it in my store/purchase it," etc.) These mechanisms will not be perfect but will, I deeply believe, be less harmful than state censorship.

"Police who staged a mock attack featuring a bomber shouting "Allahu Akbar" have been forced to apologise for racial stereotyping.
The exercise - criticised for using a fake "Muslim terrorist" - was to test the response of emergency services. Eight hundred volunteers took part in the overnight drill to make it as realistic as possible.
Greater Manchester Police said the event at the Trafford Centre was not linked to any specific terror threat.

Manchester peace activist Dr Erinma Bell criticised the use of a "Muslim terrorist". She said "a terrorist can be anyone" and "we need to move away from stereotypes"."

Obviously Dr Bell has been so busy promoting peace she hasn't had time to watch the news lately. Who does she think the terrorist is likely to be I wonder? Thanks to the BBC for providing this interesting item of news and for reminding me of just why I resent every penny I pay in TV licence fee every year. They always manage to find someone who will trot out the same tired old clichés. Never bother to find someone who might have a non PC viewpoint.

They should have had the terrorist shout "Free the North! A united Ireland forever!". Or maybe a Red October slogan...

I'm just saying that most terrorism in Europe has been European on European as opposed to Muslim. Sure that's changing, but it wasn't Muslims who killed Mountbatten or tried to murder Thatcher.

Wonder if she's reading the news today featuring the latest psychopath:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/one-man-dead-after-attacker-heard-shouting -allahu-akbar-knifes-m/

When we say armies always train for the last war, that's meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive.