Bob

Be specific and I will address your false assertions.

So you don't think the provincial HRTs constitute unreasonable limitations on freedom of speech, for example through Section 13 of the HRA of 1977?

Your definition of censorship would include a conservative website editing an op-ed that it found too liberal. It was clear that I was talking about the legal foundations of freedom of speech, as my earliest posts in this threat indicated that I was talking about America demonstrating the broadest protections of this right anywhere to be found in the world. What did you interpret "protections" to mean aside from legal provisions? The goal posts were clear set by me as soon as I entered this thread. You are the one who intentionally assumed that the goal posts were ten thousand kilometres apart so that you could insert absurd examples of "censorship". It's funny, really. You lose. Again.

Are you familiar with the opening clause of the CCRF? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The bolded segment is what allows unjustifiable restriction of freedom of speech via the Human Rights Act of 1977. As an aside, language laws in Quebec are equally absurd. Canada certainly provides a greater climate of freedom of speech than most other countries in the world, and that is to be appreciated, but the left has effectively restricted this essential freedom unjustifiably in Canada and the rest of the Anglosphere.

As expected, you still cannot provide any examples of attempts from the right to suppress freedom of speech through legislation. Keep digging.

Killing an Iranian scientist involved Iran's developments towards its acquisition of nuclear weaponry is entirely justifiable, if Israel is indeed involved. Iran with nuclear weaponry constitutes and existential threat to Israel. Israeli diplomats operating in India and Georgia, on the other hand.... You are the classical Jew-hating anti-Western leftist who plays the moral relativity card, suggesting that all parties in politics are equal and that somewhat comparable acts are equally justifiable or condemnable. Your ideological ancestors were saying the same thing in the 1930s, suggesting that Churchill's warnings about Nazi Germany's abrogation of the Versailles Treaty and increasing militarization were unfair. After all, perhaps Nazi Germany has a viewpoint, and in-line with your amoral ideology, their viewpoint is equally valid and worth or consideration. If the powers of the Entente can now be militarized, why not Germany?

It's not about the "right to offend", it's about the right to freedom of expression, even if certain persons will be offended. The left, of course, wants to play babysitter and regulate what can and cannot be said, lest some people be offended. It's really sick and perverted, and it's unfortunately widespread. As I've stated, the only free country in this world that really enshrines true freedom of speech is America. Canada and the rest of the Anglosphere have all implemented "hate speech" laws to satisfy their leftist ideological leanings of centralized management and social engineering.

It's not about the "right to offend", is it? It's pretty clear that he's talking about the right to freedom of expression. It's pretty obvious that you don't even grasp the crux of this issue. What in the world is the "harm threshold"?

What's your point, exactly?

How is this hard to understand? The forces behind censorship are clear: it's the left and their worldview of deference to authority, as they believe in centralization of control. That's what's behind the constant attacks on freedom of speech and the laws that have been past in liberal democracies that curb "offensive" speech as deemed by the elite political establishment. The left believes that the masses need large degrees of management from government, as they fear the other side of freedom - the dirty word known as responsibility.

Getting pepper sprayed at some "protest" on a university campus doesn't constitute a restriction of freedom speech. As far as the OWS arrests are concerned, it was another example of police officers not doing their jobs - likely because they were handcuffed (metaphorically) by the leftist political establishment that prevented them from enforcing the law. Consider that these "occupy" losers were allowed to engage in long-term vagrancy in public areas, cases in point Toronto and Vancouver. The "occupy" losers were treated with kids gloves. You gotta love those edited two-minute clips that provide no context, whatsoever. That isn't an oversight, it's by design - to mislead the viewer into thinking that the police were overzealous (yeah, right) in their conduct. One is left to believe that it's as if these "occupy losers weren't recording everything for hours. What preceded those engagements with the police? Unfortunately for you, I'm not some idiot leftist incapable of thought.

Yeah... the day you make a sincere attempt to be honest about this, you'll make a post and actively chastise Iran for sponsoring real terrorism, i.e. the recent attacks in India and Georgia against Israeli diplomats. Why are you pretending to care about terrorism? Your anti-Semitic agenda is clear for all of us to see, you don't do a very good job hiding your hatred of Jews.

In several ways, Israel has broader protections for freedom of speech than does Canada. Now go run to Wikipedia and come back in ten minutes and pretend to be familiar with laws that affect freedom of speech in Israel

Cutting public funds to the arts doesn't constitute censorship. Nice job parroting the lies of the loser left artists who can't cut in the free market and depend on taxpayer handouts to sustain their "art". The long-form census also has nothing to do with freedom of speech. "Limits debate in parliament"? You're gonna need to clarify that. Is this another reference to the proroguing? As usual, you deflect onto irrelevant tangents and refuse to provide examples of the right advancing an agenda of criminalizing certain types of speech. It's the left that supports "hate speech" laws, not the right.