TreeBeard

The courts went way further than that in allowing the pastor’s speech. They said he could be nasty…. Equating gays to pedophiles…. That sort of thing. So political parties should not set limits on their MPs? There could be Conservative Communists? Anti-gay Liberals? Union-busting NDP’ers? Any MP can vote any way they want right now…. But they should be prepared for the Conservatives to kick you out if you vote for pro-Communist legislation, or espouse views antithetical to the political party they freely joined. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/controversial-mp-derek-sloan-ejected-from-conservative-caucus-1.5274153 Sloan was kicked from caucus not for being a commie, but for being too anti-gay….

Do you think inciting violence could be a grey area? Is it always reallly easy to tell the line?

1 - I don’t think anyone said it was in the bible. Just that a pastor was the one saying it. (Do you think anti-LGBTQ sentiments are more prevalent in religious people?) 2 - That was my reaction! “Hmmm…. Why did Faramir use something that the courts said we could say as the example of something we couldn’t say?” I chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

We agree!! Right on! Both of us believe that we should restrict speech that incites violence! Now, how should we go about deciding where to draw the line as to what incites violence or is just the nasty stuff that you and I both like? Oh, and what about libel? Should we restrict speech that impugns someone’s reputation?

They’re using different criteria then you. I will use your criteria then and agree with you that the Libs are far left and the Cons are left of centre. The labels don’t really matter to me… I tend to focus on the ideas much more than the labels. This probably means, if we can judge by the latest election, that 95% of Canada would be considered left of centre and further. Agreed?

Be nasty!! Just don’t incite violence. You think they should be able to incite violence?

So, if you give me one answer based on your criteria, and I ask your parents about GWB and they say he was far right, do you still think that this is an objective opinion? It sounds to me that these are the very definition of subjective terms. Would you agree?

How did it work better back then than it does now? I bet there was plenty of opposition to democracy when it was first being formed back then. Or do you think absolutely everyone was in favour of it?

It was more than that. It linked homosexuality with pedophelia and such. BUT, it was overturned by the courts. The courts admonished the HRT and confirmed that this was allowable speech. Unfortunately, this example was a dud.

That’s a country. Do you have an actual example of this actually happening in the UK?

OK…. Don’t you contradict this in the next sentence? Expressing an opinion and speech are the same thing. Unless you are redefining terms to mean different things? I hope not, because that always makes things awkward and unproductive when people are not even talking about the same thing. Right. Very limited restrictions. Like inciting violence… like yelling ‘this is a stick up” in a bank. What do you think about libel? Should lying about someone and impugning their reputation be allowable speech? 1 - Yes, nasty is great. Let’s get nasty! Incitement of hatred? No. I don’t think people should be allowed to promote hatred of Jews (for example) if it could be foreseeable that it would lead to violence against them. 2 - But your example so far has been someone’s nasty speech who was confirmed to be OK. I love nasty speech too!! Darn gays! So can you provide another example of people NOT being allowed to say nasty things about LGBTQ (or whatever group…. Your choice) in Canada? Because you did say this was forbidden to do in Canada.

So you think it worked better in the 1700s than it does today?

If most people thing Cons are right, and you think they’re left, how is that an objective measure? I think it is clearly quite subjective depending on whom you ask.

So your parents say the BC Libs are fascists. And you say the Conservatives are on the left, and it goes further left from there into kooky and extreme. I think we have determined that the apple indeed doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Where is this happening? Examples? Because the last time I asked for an example of a Canadian who isn’t allowed to express anti LGBTQ sentiments, I got a case that was overturned and confirmed that indeed the person was allowed to say those things about LGBTQ people.

You just posted that you can’t yell ‘hands up’ in a bank. And you also can’t incite violence. Didn’t you?

So you do think there should be limits to free speech. Me too. What if we don’t agree on where that line should be? How should we resolve that?

People who aren’t guilty have to defend themselves all the time, do they not? Anytime someone is rendered “not guilty” you can make the case that they should never have been put through the process, couldn’t you? In this case, the HRT was put in its place. Victory in Canada for free speech. Pastors can say this all day long until they’re blue in the face, right? Why are you claiming that you can’t criticize LGBTQ people when the Canadian courts have confirmed that you absolutely can?

So you thinking it should be legal to encourage the killing of Jews?

We do… The case you are citing as destroying this poor pastor’s right to promote that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia was overturned. He won. So…. What does that mean for your STASI state comment when your best example is the exact opposite of what you are trying to portray? https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-victory-at-last-rev-stephen-boissoin-prevails-against-albertas-human-rights-censors

Do you think you could have inherited your parents’ penchant for labeling political parties you don’t agree with as something more extreme than they actually are in reality?

The legislation that never passed and isn’t law? Can you provide a reference to the pastor’s case?

What would you consider the CPC on the political spectrum?

Good points. Don’t Canada/Canadians support pro-democracy factions in China?

Didn’t the OP extensively quote the media as their source for this information?