Faramir

Yes because they hadn't had the decades to build up an organized effort to subvert democracy. We did our best. Unlike France we are still on our first try.

My golden rule is that most people think they are more conservative than they really are. George Bush fancies himself one, but he is at best what Von Mises would call an interventionist. He pushed big government policies, spent like a drunken sailor, and sent sons to war over ridiculous democracy building.

Right and that's obviously NOT an opinion. That's a statement. So no I do not believe there should be any penalty for expression one's opinion. If we want to talk about speech, then there should be VERY limited narrow restrictions. I find that left and liberals argue these points because they really do agree there should certain topics off limits. Is that you? Do you think anyone should have the right to even say nasty things about Jews, Christians, Muslims, UFO freaks, hippies, liberals, conservatives, ect?

Nope because whatever the label is it is not subjective but objectively true. We can spend hours at this and I really am not interested in doing so. For example the Liberals are far left because of their affinity to large expensive government and hatred of free speech and opinion. Their gun grabbing. Ect. The CPC of course is not perfect has run large deficits which is why they are left of center.

slightly left of center. Liberals far left. NDP Green and Bloc kooky extreme left.

They left us a model for responsible government. Not pure democracy which would put the minority at the mercy of the majority. We have a system of elected officials who are elected by riding with a bias to creating majority governments. Strong government that can get things done as the population has given it the mandate to do. A Senate to put the Parliament in check. And a court to also keep the government in check.

I don't believe there should be limits on freedom of opinion. Do you? We are obviously on two different planets here. You revile free speech and I don't. You like safe and polite speech only.

The penalty is in the process. Have you heard that expression. That is the intent of the tribunals. The Tribunals should not exist as they are quasi kangaroo courts. Real courts don't pay for the legal bills of the plaintiffs like the so called human rights commissions do. Pastors don't dare speak about homosexuality in case they get pulled before a Tribunal.

Liberals still believe in the money tree or that there is some untapped segment of the working population to get money from.

It's a little troubling but not unexpected that most here do not believe in the charter rights right to free speech or even the long British tradition of free speech. No, speech should not be used in criminal activity. Obviously you can't go into a bank and yell "hands up". But this is just splitting of hairs and a dishonest way to somehow justify limits on free opinion. Liberals use to value free speech.

It should be legal to say the holocaust did not happen. It should be legal to say I hate Jews. Incitement to violence is a tricky one. A fine line that could be abused by authorities. So if someone used facebook and said 'Everyone rise up now and kill some Jews", that should be looked at under incitement to violence. Or if you like if someone said "Christianity is a loathsome religion, and I hate most Christians I meet" most definitely they should be allowed to and do say that.

But he didn't win. He was put through a punitive and expensive process with no right to legal representation. He had to pay for his own legal defense while the accusers did not have to. He should have never had to defend himself at all for what was free speech.

You can talk about them but the other side should have every right to express their opinion. I know you won't like this but I believe holocaust deniers should not be penalized. The way to deal with bad ideas is to expose them using our own free speech.

I hate that its framed as "speech". Freedom of opinion or expression. For THAT there should be no limit whatoever and no attempt by biased governments to decide which is or is not hate speech.

I rather go back to don't ask don't tell. I don't need perverts subjugating my children to their BS. Sexual activity is not an identity, its just a past time.

Let people criticize those groups just like we allow criticism of Christians and conservatives.

She was/is a horrible human being. Typical liberal.

Mr Dress up clown shoes. He's the Hillary Clinton of Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pastor-christian-coalition-violated-human-rights-law-alberta-panel-rules-1.649452 Stephen Boisson. It wasn't a hate crime THEN just a violation of a kangaroo court. But shiny pony's intention is to pass that bill to make it so. Canada the increasingly STASI state.

That is the intent of the legislation. The Alberta Humans rights tribunal put an injunction on an AB Pastor from ever speaking about homosexuality. Life time Ban. It is a pseudo court but is upheld by real judges.

Communist in regards to the liberals might be a small bit of hyperbole. There are definitely far left though.

See that's the problem. We assume bad faith or dishonest from the other side, so we are left not knowing what is true, as we judge what we are told, by the media, social networking act, is a big fat lie, out forward by the other side. Actually the family I mention is my Dad's side and they generally very intolerant of other viewpoints. I grew up in a conservative town, but my parents were and are always far left. The fact they saw the BC Liberals, who are very socially liberal, as fascists, tells me they have a very skewed viewpoint.

I have to say at least politically our ancestors were much wiser than us, and that 18th century form has served us very well. Way preferable than the chaos a proportional system would give us. Look at Israel and Denmark that use these unstable systems.

Yes, say something nasty about the left = hate speech. Stand behind your beliefs that homosexuality is sin = hate speech. Dislike the religion of Islam = hate speech. We already saw it used this way when Alberta had a Human RIghts Tribunal

Right but there is no way someone hating on Christians is going to end up criminalized. Still we are suppose to have freedom of opinion and this bill outlaw "nasty" opinion - which of course is in the eye of the beholder. So yes criticism could very well be viewed as hate, and one could get a criminal record or sanction for just expressing opinion.