Leaderboard

She lives in a country which defines illegal speech as anything which is unflattering towards the government or towards Islam. And fully supports those restrictions. And that is the problem with allowing governments to define 'hate speech' too broadly as there is a tendency among the autocratic to ban anything which might point out their own inadequacies or corruption.

Ha ha!! Then you have nothing of value to say about a guy, like Trump, whom you act in equal disrespect. If you don't like what you hear, how is that superior to the accusations you hold against Trump for his own supposed capacity to ignore what he doesn't like? And...you just gave him more validity for his success!

So you believe that if a Canadian criticizes a Canadian political leader or a policy of their country they are not a loyal Canadian? No need for that pesky democracy or freedom of speech. How very totalitarian of you comrade.

But it was influenced BY the same KIND of thinking hypocritically within the 'left'. What IS admirable about Trump is to his overt capacity to speak openly even if it threatens his own credibility. I'd rather one be honest to their 'deception' than to those who are clever at disguising it. Also, while it may seem 'flaky' to change one's mind, Trumps ability to alter decisions also proves that he is still more flexible than many who wouldn't even permit us to question this. His own lying, where it exists, including his boasting confidence in obvious error, and his unapologetic decision making even where faulty, all suggest a human that is willing to take the reigns of his country with the sincere INTEREST in the 'capitalistic' ideals their country has demanded and succeeded at. You may not like this positive overview of him or the American system. But their system already defaults to expecting error and why their own constitution at least has a power to EVOLVE and improve this. The very fact that the American population can openly disagree and still not be hidden by the auspices of controls on all media says a lot. Our governments by contrast have successfully managed to control our media through the specific establishments, but differ only on WHICH wealthy cultures have the reigns. Compare the American Constitution to our own Constitution that initiates itself as a system uniquely designed to protect SPECIFIC cultures with priority and THEN only allow us to a freedom of 'conscience' as though we already do not HAVE this freedom to think! The freedom is NOT extended to the ACTIONS of 'expression' without the caution of respect to those authoritarian cultures outlined in our Constitution. Add to this the clauses which enable government to suspend the very Constitution without public approval, and we have a system that is perfectly top-down and undemocratic. (...not to mention that one party specifically designed the whole Constitution within the confines of their own privacy and with no forum of the public to opt in to its design.) I know we have value to our system regardless. But to insult the U.S. for their system lacks justification when we also OWE our own beneficial parts TO their system: Anti-colonialism, anti-Royalty, and a reduction of powers that used to belong solely to England's will. Our historical leaders also were non-loyal to the direct will of the people and LOYAL to the upper-classes presumed to be superior of those authorized through the auspices of Churches of England and to the Catholics of Quebec abandoned by the Republican French who were defeating religious arrogance at the time. WHY we even had problems of things like the Residential schools and the Sixty's Scoop, were not due to the whole of the Canadian population that exists but to those arrogant 'leaders' that are now commanding the non-affiliated population to pay for the debts of the crimes of their own family inheritances. I used to here insult at the American's system of the "Melting Pot" as it constantly got compared to the 'assimilation' of the Germans in the World Wars. Yet this faulty thinking was presented as though the Americans were FORCING people without volution when our own system creates laws that dictate which cults get to exist in perpetuity via the Constitution. Our "Multicultural" system is not 'multicultural' other than in the nature that it accepts more than one 'culture'. This too was a mere accident due to weakness of the Loyalists and the abandoned French in Quebec ('loyalists' to the old Catholic royalty no longer extant in the old country). We CAN repair these problems. But it doesn't come at the insult to the United States but to our support of their own ideologies that gave them the actual 'diversity' they DO have there by people who are not FORCED into their prior country associations. Those who volunteer to still associate there at least doesn't deny the capacity of others to volunteer to mix cultures, even if those self-segregating communities still persist. If anything, our own influence will only affect their system by enhancing/strengthening those who ARE more desiring to be segregated due to their beliefs about associated meanings of culture and genetics == "ethnic purity". We are the ones who are enhancing the divisions by speaking of the very concept of 'diversity' as a virtue as though we are all distinct animal species who should be separated into cages of a big ZOO. It was our 'British' heritage that also gave even the U.S. their concept of 'reserving' people as though they were just such distinct beings. We have a lot to owe to the Americans more than to those British or French peoples of the past. Diversity comes about voluntarily. But the fear is not that people here can choose to opt out of their heredity but to those who WON'T embrace them in stereotypical ways and who are successfully CONSERVING them through laws that enshrine those divisions specifically, but NOT universally.

Look look, we're facist, you're facist , my dogs are facist. It's all good you know.

I think there's a broad range of topics where free speech has increasingly been under attack. When raising concerns on topics like diversity, gender equality and immigration, among others, the politically correct tendency is to shut critics down, even if nothing that's said is particularly incorrect or even controversial in its own right. Often, labels like "dog whistle" are applied to dismiss the assumed and/or alleged intent of critics. Accommodating Muslims is only a minor component of the broader debate about free speech. Did you read Neil MacDonald's article, which notes that there has been a trend toward increasingly narrowing the parameters of acceptable discussion and debate? Mr. MacDonald holds that M-103 is a good example of this (anti-democratic) trend. The issue is not whether one can back up what they're saying but whether there is a requirement in online fora that commenters must do so in order to express an opinion. If one disagrees with a comment, one is free to provide a countervailing opinion and back it up with arguments and/or facts if one so chooses. One can simply disagree, if one wishes. I spent years in academia and online fora are not academia and it's unrealistic to expect those who use them to observe academic process. Simply because most don't post in an academic fashion doesn't necessarily discredit their views. As for your critique of style, I don't want to get nasty or personal. I try to ensure that my posts are comprehensible to reasonably objective readers. I suppose one can cherry-pick aspects of a post with which one disagrees even while agreeing with the basic premise(s) of such post, but to be fair such qualified disagreement(s) should be clarified in a response. This is not about rules and guidelines vs censorship. Rather, it's a matter of promoting respectful and productive general discourse.

The ban on hospitality is kind of dumb, but I suppose symbolic. Wage freeze will come next. Count on it.

Just doing my part to help America feel great about itself. Kind of like passengers trapped in the back seat?

A tweet from Steve Paiken of TVO,s Agenda.. https://www.google.ca/search?ei=AMcnW-C9MMrR5gLHjYHABQ&q=steve+paikin+twitter&oq=steve+paikin+tw&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0.8292.14418.0.18948.9.8.1.0.0.0.175.911.2j6.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.918...0i67k1j35i39k1j0i20i263k1j33i160k1j0i22i30k1.0.WXhXn5NGLoA Many are now locking their doors and crawling under the bed.

I'm just going to safely assume most Canadians are definitely not as anti american as you.

Economic choices made by generations of Canadians and Canadian leadership, not Trump. The impact of steel and aluminum tariffs on the U.S. is estimated at less than 1% of GDP, and slightly more for Canada. It's not just about Canada....Chinese steel has been a worldwide dumping problem for many years. Trudeau is an economic failure not because of Trump's tariffs, but because of other policies that will burden and limit Canada's economy far more.

So Doug Ford's plan to opt out of Cap-N-Trade which would cost the consumer nothing, only the large companies trading the carbon credits, will now force the feds hand into forcing Ontario into the carbon tax, which will tax everything. This is what happens when you have no plan. Doug, get yourself together, we already got downgraded by investors because you have no plan and investors don't trust your gimmicks. Stop the gravy train is not a plan. This has to be either one of the most dishonest posts, or the most misinformed that has ever been posted here. First point. Cap and Trade does cost the average person. Do you think corporations are just going to eat the cost? No, they pass it on to the consumer, standard practise. Next point. Yes a Carbon tax will raise the price of everything and Ford has said he'll fight it. The case for a Carbon Tax isn't the slam dunk you seem to think it is. Next point. We were downgraded because of Wynne, not Ford. That's a fact, deny it if you want but you'll just be making yourself look even more foolish. So congratulations. You managed to get every point you raised wrong in a spectacular fashion.

Anyway.....why should the present generation apologise for the past? Everyone has done atrocities to everyone at some point! Even Indigenous people did atrocities to each other in their tribal wars, did they apologise to one another? Quest for dominion, is one of the reasons. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195071986.001.0001/acref-9780195071986-e-0618 They did it to each other, and they got conquered by a more powerful "tribe" - the Europeans. Conquest - that's the name of the game! Yes, I agree that an apology lead to being required to pay! No, we shouldn't be too quick to apologise for anything.....

There is always pressure from somewhere to TRY to hold specific power regardless of the people's will. But the people's will is also as much a right to question. At different times and contexts, the popular view is just as problematic. So there will always be a continuing battle to BE the ones in power, whether you belong to a popular crowd or to some specialized interest of some matter or other. Dubai is autocratic but CAN be 'healthy' without essential democratic power. But this is only due to the fortune of wealth within that population. Democratic reforms occur where there is often MORE competition to survival (contrasts). Being from Anatolia, have you read any Socrates? His own voice argued why the extreme of democracy they had then was actually disruptive. That is why he (through Plato) suggested "Republicanism", a representative type of democracy. Had we not had voices that differ even in extremes, we wouldn't have discovered even BETTER means to improve ourselves. Free speech does NOT refer to the 'values' of the particular speech. (addition for clarity on edit): That is, free speech does not require being 'good' or 'bad' to the listeners, but to be heard first and foremost, regardless of skill, quality, or subjective meaning for or against it by all people.

Then why have Canadian businesses and politicians asked for internal policy changes to respond to Trump/Congress tax cuts, undermining Canada's competitiveness ? Canadian oil rigs are leaving Canada at a faster pace than before. Trudeau was first to personally attack Trump and Americans (60 Minutes interview)....before Trump became president. Trump was attacked viciously in Canadian media for two years. Canada likes to dish it out....but can't take it in return ? Trump says a lot of things to disturb the status quo. His very existence as POTUS proves that it is a successful strategy for him.

I think you are just missing possible context. If you have a system of laws pre-established before you AND that system bars you from having the power to alter it regardless, 'free speech' itself is all you have to compete against those systems by getting others to hear you.

A lot of frustration - but no hate. The illegal border crossers were at first almost exclusively Haitians - because Trump signaled that the "safe haven" program that the US put in place after the 2011 earthquake was to be terminated - Haiti was to be designated as a safe country. Canada had terminated their own "safe haven" program almost two years' prior. Canada should have made that clear at the onset and turned back almost all of them - even if they had to create fast-path legislation to minimize the appeal process for these US economic migrants. It appeared to open-minded people that Trudeau was just using the opportunity to virtue-signal to the world and subtly hammer Trump. And we have been paying a heavy price.

When the Conservatives were in power - Harper and his boys were always the "mean spirited" bunch. Conservatives are always depicted that way. They took those lumps from the Left all through their 10 years. No sense trying to defend their policies but they certainly didn't allow for uncontrolled "refugees" flooding across the border - or taking in 25,000 Syrians in such a short time without the right support. No - it's a Liberal problem right now - largely created by Trudeau. Bad decisions, bad execution.

How far right have I moved? I mean, you probably know from these forums. I'm still firmly against what anyone in the US would call "social conservatism". Anything to do with religion and moralizing, count me out. But I guess on some issues like for example immigration, I used to be an open borders kind of person, whereas now I think it should be limited to probably lower numbers than now, and criteria strictly set for the benefit of the receiving country. I used to be 100% for environmentalism everything else be damned, but now I understand the importance of balancing conservation of the environment with economic realities and needs. I used to be all for change for the sake of change, whereas now I also understand the value of established traditions and institutions and the potential downside of disrupting them. For example, if you asked me 10 years ago about how I feel about Canada having a queen, I would have ranted at you about how the whole idea seems against the ideals of equality and democracy and what not, but today I'd just be like, well, it's worked pretty well for a long time so why change it?

I also would like to see all the countries of the world work together and all get rid of their military's. The trillions of tax dollars saved would be of enormous and of great value to every country on earth. Hunger, poverty and especially wars would be deleted. But that would take some wheeling and dealing to ever get that to happen. Maybe Trump will work on that next. But I will definitely not try and hold my breath on that idea.