- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You mean the country we were trading with the entire time.
So, which is it? :lamo
You mean the country we were trading with the entire time.
We like free speech we just draw the line at wanting death of x group and saying something to purposely cause harm.
Those cases were libel/defamation not hate speech.
That's the line, today. Tomorrow, you can't say nigger, honkie, spick, kike, dego, greaser, bohump, etc.
The next day, you can't cuss.
The day after that, you can't yell above a certain decibel level.
Then, it will be illegal look cross-eyed at someone.
The point being, if there is a line, then it can always be re-drawn.
No, they were "hate speech." The Human Rights Commission doesn't handle libel/defamation. The libel suits against Levant came after he beat the charges in the HRC.
Steyn was prosecuted by the HRC merely for quoting an Imam accurately.
Said Dean Steacy of the HRC: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value . . . it's not my job to give value to an American concept."
(All this said, Canada can perfectly well deny entry to anyone it wants.)
That's the line, today. Tomorrow, you can't say nigger, honkie, spick, kike, dego, greaser, bohump, etc.
The next day, you can't cuss.
The day after that, you can't yell above a certain decibel level.
Then, it will be illegal look cross-eyed at someone.
The point being, if there is a line, then it can always be re-drawn.
Google tells me a goofy or ugly guy. Yeah it is going the other way on television and radio, just watch any show for pre-teens or teens.Actually it is going in the opposite direction. Just listen to what is allowed to be said on TV compared to 20 yrs ago. Just listen to conversation around you in public.
By the way, what is a bohump?
I would like to know why? We probably would have just traded with Britain instead of you.
That is the line drawn by provincial laws on the views of their constituents. We are not like paranoid Americans that think the government is always out to get them.
We're not like stupid Canadians, willing to sit back while our civil rights are slowly stripped away from us. Some folks act as it it's never happened, before.
We're not like stupid Canadians, willing to sit back while our civil rights are slowly stripped away from us. Some folks act as it it's never happened, before.
Patriots act?
We view it as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
What do you mean the same criteria?
We view it as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
By same criteria I really mean whims of the government of the day.
Communists were once not allowed into the US, a Dutch politician was not allowed into the UK and book burners are not being allowed entry into Canada. My feeling is that anyone should get a visitors permit unless they are criminals or until they break the local laws.
Therein lies the problem: who gets to define, "reasonable limits"?
Respect for Canada: -100 points
Actually, Canada prosecutes for much, much less than that. Ask Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn.
Blown out of proportion?
Not a single civil right was ever threatened by the Patriot Act.
I don't see this as flavour of the day as quite simply no matter who you are this guy is a looney. He also technically a criminal aswell.
The government on input by their constituents, and approved by the supreme court.
that was the human rights commission. Its not a judicial prosecution and the dude adjudicating it ain't a judge. Its a travesty that is slowly getting fixed as the crazier commissioners are fired and the public gets more indignant. Neither Levant nor Steyn should have had to go thru that crap.
I happen to think steyn is a racist and levant is seriously anti-muslim, but expressing their opinions isn't remotely a human rights violation against some pansy assed citizen. (it only takes one complaint to get drawn into this absurd "legal" quagmire).
The government on input by their constituents, and approved by the supreme court.