PlayItLoud

That's why we have a Constitution that limits the actions of the majority. Whoever told you we lived in a lawless society where government could do whatever it wanted?

He might not be a group or plotting violence, but him saying that only the absence of blondes will lead us to paradise is direct incitement of violence, which would be illegal. And like I said, free speech exists on both sides. Just as he can spread hate, you can spread love. And I seriously doubt FOX viewers think it's necessary to rid the world of Leftists to make it better.

And by their standards, we're a weak, unprincipled bunch that took ten years to fight a a group of towelheads.

I love that

We can't look for normal immigrants that'll come here without expecting a handout?

So the entire refugee system is just a feel-good program that only exists to make the government look and feel good and maintain a this "Canadians are nice" image? Great to know how well my tax dollars are used.

The internet is the greatest example of how limited government intervention of discussion works.

Can someone explain to me why we're accepting refugees at all?

How do you suggest we balance the budget then? And where's your proof that we have a weak recovery? Canada came out of the recession, best in the world and you're suggesting it's weak? How good is that Kool-Aid, that you gulp it by the barrel?

Canada should accept no refugees

It does that already. But one can't deny the danger of demagoguery designed to inflict actual damage on identifiable groups. Hurt feelings don't count, of course, or at least, shouldn't. Be as offensive as you like and I will be offensive right back at you. That oughtn't to be an issue. You understand when there are radical groups that rise up or already have risen up, police usually start investigating it immediately (especially since 9/11) to keep an eye on them. If they were to start planning attacks on blondes, their plans would be stopped immediatly.

No... what you do is do the exact same thing, raise awareness of how blondes aren't inferior. By the way, I'm not necessarily against governmetn action. What the gov. could is release PSAs or encourage schools to invite speakers to raise awareness about equality.

Harper and Trudeau? Really?

You understand that you, conversely could easily turn around and do the exact same, create an organization that promoted the exact opposite?

Are you saying that it's okay for you to do, but not other people just because yours has a smaller size audience? You realize people have been charged for what they put in their diaries, after someone else read because they misplaced it? Because if you write in a diary, you accept the responsibility that there's a chance someone will read it and react to it. And what's the audience size of the average diary? 1. Exact same thing applies to you.

Reposting just because I accidently deleted the tag. You're referring to a time when state-sponsored racism existed. You should understand there's a difference racism by private individuals and government racism. Certainly, they're both immoral and wrong, but one certainly should not be illegal.

I just want to reply to the people who say we should censor hate speech because it causes violence. You realize we already have laws against violent acts right? The concept of preemptive action to prevent crime/etc. is what spawned the entire Iraq war and will probably be used to start a war in Iran.

That's not really true. If you look at people like Ezra Levant who published a cartoon of Mohamed or something along those lines, the police were called and Ezra was brought to interrogations with the Human Rights Council because Muslims felt too offended by his cartoons. To my understanding, the cartoons had no violent content, only mocked Islamic religions.

If you want to talk about examples of success of the Free Market, you need to look at Hong Kong.

I may, I may not. It doesn't matter because we're not talking about the morality of things. There's no doubt that racist acts or exposing people that usually result in violence is immoral, however it shouldn't be illegal.

NORAD was created to guard against nuclear missiles which usually travels through outer space. They have very little do with what goes on within the atmosphere. Now, if you were asking where USAF was during and the CIA prior to 9/11, you'd have a case. It's just that we have nothing to do with their funding.

The slope slides both ways. A person can spread hateful speech just as well as a person spreading opposite.

That's directly telling someone to commit suicide. Hate speech isn't necessarily that. Take this for example, if I tell a woman that her husband is cheating on her and she decides to kill him for it, why should I be responsible for how she reacted to that information? (Assuming it's true) Same goes with hate speech. If you get so offended by hate speech that you decide to kill yourself, you can't hold the person who said it responsible for your own actions. What's next? Charging a boss for murder of a man who commits suicide for having too much stress from work?

And you're all acting as if the only people capable of speech are the ones making the hateful speeches.