New developments on the CAPE front - looks like Oger is backing away from the "let's make a database of feminists we want to harass" concept with a steaming fresh pile of mealymouthed bullshit. Supposedly he is trying to decide exactly who or what should be included in such a list while still clinging to the grim fantasy of publicly naming people who disagree with him. Archive here.
"Oger said the project is in its infancy and the foundation has not yet determined exactly what types of actions, groups or individuals would be documented, but it believes the data could be useful to academics, law enforcement and others."
"Oger said ... the organization has not yet decided how much information to make public but it does not want to encourage violence in any form. "
However, Michael Vonn from the BC Civil Liberties Association has positioned herself in Oger's path. As Vonn pointed out at the recent debate: "there could be privacy issues involved in posting individuals' information online ... and it's important to distinguish between actual hate [and] differing opinions on certain topics."
“All kinds of things that people think are hateful constitute genuine political speech,” Vonn said, adding that knowing if someone is against an immigration policy isn't enough information to conclude they are racist, for example.
Until the foundation lands on a specific model, it's unclear if there would be any issues around rights, Vonn said.
But she said it's also worth asking if a map would contribute to healthy political discourse and warned against too loose of a definition of “association.” In a healthy democracy, groups with opposing views should be able to attend one another's events without being painted with the same brush because it could help build dialogue and understanding.
While governments and governing players are expected to be transparent, we have different standards for individual citizens, she said.
“We don't ask citizens to be transparent because we're sovereign. It's the state that is supposed to be transparent to us,” she said.
(Note: Michael Vonn is a woman with a man's name, not a troon, and I sort of love her.)
"Oger said the project is in its infancy and the foundation has not yet determined exactly what types of actions, groups or individuals would be documented, but it believes the data could be useful to academics, law enforcement and others."
"Oger said ... the organization has not yet decided how much information to make public but it does not want to encourage violence in any form. "
However, Michael Vonn from the BC Civil Liberties Association has positioned herself in Oger's path. As Vonn pointed out at the recent debate: "there could be privacy issues involved in posting individuals' information online ... and it's important to distinguish between actual hate [and] differing opinions on certain topics."
“All kinds of things that people think are hateful constitute genuine political speech,” Vonn said, adding that knowing if someone is against an immigration policy isn't enough information to conclude they are racist, for example.
Until the foundation lands on a specific model, it's unclear if there would be any issues around rights, Vonn said.
But she said it's also worth asking if a map would contribute to healthy political discourse and warned against too loose of a definition of “association.” In a healthy democracy, groups with opposing views should be able to attend one another's events without being painted with the same brush because it could help build dialogue and understanding.
While governments and governing players are expected to be transparent, we have different standards for individual citizens, she said.
“We don't ask citizens to be transparent because we're sovereign. It's the state that is supposed to be transparent to us,” she said.
(Note: Michael Vonn is a woman with a man's name, not a troon, and I sort of love her.)
