Yzermandius19

your certainty is unfounded even Harper cut military spending and O'Toole is a bigger cuck than he ever was Canadians don't like military spending, including the Conservatives you can't vote your way out of it culture is destiny and Canada is simply not a martial nation anymore

not rubbish it would lead to more minorities governments and more elections Canada has enough of those at is PR sucks FPTP is way better especially in a parliamentary system

then are both listed under the same section of the charter and both are included in the first amendment it is you who doesn't understand with your distinction without a difference blather as if that changes that rights are being infringed by stupid laws

rights are not privileges you have them confused the government doesn't grant you rights the government is prevented from taking them away laws which strip rights away are unconstitutional and are supposed to be struck down by the courts even when they fail to do so hate speech laws are unconstitutional

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior rights are based on principles too feelings not so much, especially when they contradict moral principles as important as rights banning protests outside of hospitals is far worse behaviour than protesting outside of hospitals outliers who block access to hospitals notwithstanding

it is about principles and feelings often get in the way of morality and principles

no morality is not about feelings morality is about principles feelings often get in the way of principles and morality

do you not understand that this is not indicative of all protests outside of hospitals or that there are already laws against that for the protests that are outliers?

not without a good reason and you don't have one whether the law thinks you have one or not or whether the public thinks you have one or not is not important legality is not morality popularity is not morality your opinion and feelings should not supersede rights, morality and/or logic

1. public morality isn't a thing the public supporting something, doesn't make it moral 2. slavery used to be legal and slavery used to be popular that didn't make it moral 3. popularity is not morality legality is not morality stop conflating them if you can't come up with any other way to claim moral high ground than popularity and legality, you have no moral high ground if that is all you got, then you got nothing of relevance to support your position either logically or morally and yet want to restrict rights anyway your feelings and opinion do not supersede rights, morality and/or logic

okay grammar nazi

projection is a helluva drug Western Europe supports hate speech laws less than most countries on the planet and they are some of the least hateful countries on the planet the fact that you can't follow that basic logic shows you are arguing in bad faith just because America is more pro free speech and is less peaceful than some nations that have less free speech is not proof that more free speech begets more hate it is in fact precisely the opposite as usual you are allowing America Derangement Syndrome to cloud your judgement on the benefits of liberty and side against individual rights for no good reason

yes because the trend is that the countries who support hate speech restrictions the most have the most hate and the countries who support hate speech restrictions the least have the least hate pointing to one cherry picked outlier and comparing them to countries with less hate speech restrictions than most who are far less hateful than the countries that restrict it a lot more does not negate the obvious trend

3. and you haven't supported your position morally you have only appealed to popularity and legality implying that if something is legal and popular that automatically makes it moral when clearly there are many examples throughout history where that is not the case and it isn't the case with hate speech restrictions either

because they can let cancer patients through without being a block away too that's why

culture not the law if it was all based on the law Canada would have many far worse Charlottesvilles just like they would have far more mass shootings stupid prohibitions always makes things worse the road to hell is paved with good intentions

if you are fine that your status quo is built on stupidity and it being the status quo is good enough for you then you are beyond help at this point you're the kind of dude who would have supported slavery when it was the legal status quo and popular among the masses you'd feel no need to justify your position either logically or morally and demand that the burden of proof is on anyone who opposes slavery if they want to change that

Charlottesville does not prove otherwise Charlottesville would have been worse if hate speech had been banned

the cancer patients and protestors are not at odds but Canadians will undoubtedly side against free speech because like you, they hate it I am for reasonable restrictions you are for unreasonable restrictions

America has riot problems in spite of embracing free speech not because of it Canada is more peaceful, in spite of it's hatred of free speech not because of it

no because they can have access to the hospital without having to ban protests outside of hospitals for example most of these protests didn't block access and when access was blocked that was already illegal so new law is going to prevent that outcome making things illegal doesn't prevent people for breaking law making dumb laws doesn't make it easier to enforce smart laws it undermines the legitimacy of the law in general when you associate the law with such dumb laws

it has everything to do with free speech you don't get to pick where they can't say it without a damn good reason why that is the case and you don't have that reason

hate speech is free speech America knows Canada and Canadians wouldn't know what free speech is, if it slapped them in the face

1) you should be allowed to scream to jew any movie theater you dam well please 2) it offending is not relevant to whether it should be legal or not, free speech is a right, in large part to protect offensive speech it is not there to protect speech that no one finds offensive, because no one is calling you for that speech to be banned free speech protects controversial speech 5) the size of the mob is irrelevant, free speech isn't only free speech if a majority agrees with it the courts hate free speech, fck them and the horse they rode in on the courts agreeing with you doesn't make you right nor does it make your position moral, any more than the SCOTUS agreed with supporters of slavery

I vehement disagree with the outcome and comments in every example Canada hates free speech, that's why they restrict hate speech