-1=e^ipi

Why not? If I'm a German citizen in Nazi Germany that is actively killing Nazis to stop them killing jews in the name of the ideology of liberalism, then I am definitely a terrorist. I am a non-state actor committing violence against people in the state in the name of an ideology. That is terrorism. I'm arguing that not all terrorism is bad. That doesn't mean all terrorism is good or that I'm arguing that it is justified for PETA to destroy labs.

Not necessarily. Russia and China have problems with Islamic Extremism as well. Maybe they would prefer to work together with the West against the shared enemy of the Islamists.

Rather Russia or China than Saudi Arabia, Iran or ISIS. The West should reorient it's foreign policy and try to seek friendly relations (or maybe even long term alliances) with Russia and China. Sanctions.

Is saying that all non-Christians should be tortured in hell for the crime of not being Christian not creating ill-feeling towards non-Christians? Is saying that all non-Muslims deserve to be tortured for eternity by Allah for the crime of not being Muslim not creating ill-feeling towards non-Muslims? Is saying that gay people deserve to be tortured for eternity in hellfire for the crime of being gay not creating ill-feeling towards gay people? If we were to make it illegal to create ill-feeling towards another group, then we we would have to ban Islam and Christianity, which would mean that we wouldn't have freedom of religion as a society.

So if I advocate that terrorist tactics such as blowing up slave ships (property) or freeing slaves (property) without permission of slave owners for the political purpose of stopping slavery, then you think I should be thrown in jail? How about using terrorism to stop nazis from killing jews? Is it not acceptable to advocate for that?

And here I thought Anita Sarkeesian was a real person. Or that all the censorship on university campuses by SJWs was a real issue. Or that the Gregory Allen Elliot case in Canada actually happened (and that the current federal government was disappointed in its ruling and is looking for a way to combat 'cyber violence'). But I guess it's all a theoretical construct. How about opposition to C-16 and concerns that it may make it illegal to misgender someone (and thus commit gendering violence). Is that part of the real world, or just a theoretical construct?

Then you have all these SJWs that are redefining violence to include 'word violence' and 'cyber violence'. For example, Anita Sarkeesian thinks that people saying 'you suck' on the internet is 'cyber violence' and that the UN needs to step in to stop this 'violence'. Some SJWs equate supporting Trump with 'violence' and 'hate speech'. You want to make advocacy of violence illegal to open the door to all these authoritarian people to try to censor and imprison those that disagree with them? Really?

Advocacy of capital punishment for murderers is likely to be taken seriously. Advocacy that the state use violence to make people follow the law is likely to be taken seriously. That should be illegal?

Ironically, advocating that we use the violence of the state to make advocacy of violence illegal is also advocacy of violence. So by Argus' standard, Argus should be imprisoned or fined for his advocacy of violence.

Advocating for capital punishment is advocating violence. Advocating that we fine people the speed and if they don't pay their speeding ticket we use the violence of the state to throw them in jail is advocating violence. Advocating that rule of law should be enforced by a police force that uses violence to enforce the law is advocating violence.

Okay Argus, since you are the great arbiter on morality that can determine what 'hate speech' or advocacy of violence should or should not be banned, perhaps you can go through the following list and tell me which statements are acceptable and which statements should be illegal: 'Jews should be killed by the state.' 'Mass murders should be killed by the state.' 'Homosexuals that commit sodomy should be killed by the state.'' 'Shoplifters should be killed by the state.' 'People that slurp their soup should be killed by the state.' 'People that wear brown shoes should be killed by the state; brown shoes are unfashionable.' 'People that wear burkas should be killed by the state.' 'Old people should be killed by the state.'' 'People that want assisted suicide should be killed by the state.' 'People with Down's syndrome should be killed by the state.' 'Men are the evil oppressors of patriarchy and the world would be better off without them. We should kill off all the men, except for a few, which we should keep imprisoned in a sperm factory. #killallmen' 'Humans are harming the planet, man. All humans, including jews, muslims and gays, should be killed by the state to protect mother earth.'

This should absolutely be legal protected speech. People should be allowed to question morality and have different opinions on it.

It depends if the violence is imminent or not. I think we should follow the Millian Harm Principle as advocated by the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill.

Then why not advocate the breakup of Canada into 13 countries? Then your vote will have even more power (actually not really since your vote would no longer impact 37 million people but 1 million people; but whatever)!

In that case, why not advocate for BC to become a separate country? What's the point in being in Canada? All you get is your province being disrespected, having it horribly underrepresented in the House of Commons and the Senate, and having money constantly drained from BC via transfer payments and equalization.

1. There doesn't need to be merit in a position to support the right of others to advocate for that position. People should be allowed to advocate for dumb positions, be it the position that the Earth is flat or whatever. 2. If you want to get technical, I would argue that not all terrorism is inherently bad and that in some cases terrorism can be morally justified. For example, I'd argue that 200 years ago in the USA using terrorism to free slaves from slavery could be justified.

No, but I'll support the right of Muslim Imams to advocate for the death of Atheists and the right to pray to Allah to kill me. That's an issue of fraud. Advocacy of death of other groups of people isn't fraud. Look at it this way, do you think it should be protected speech to advocate for the death penalty for mass murders? But this is advocacy of death of a group of people. Why should it be okay to advocate for the death of one group of people, but not another group of people? I say, let these ideas be heard and challenged in the free marketplace of ideas. No, because not all terrorism involves murder.

There are significant positive externalities associated with health and education. In addition, people tend to travel between the provinces. A person may be born in Ontario, educated in Ontario, and then later move to BC and contribute to BC's economy (thus BC's future economy benefits from better education in Ontario today). If provinces control health care & education and they act in their own best interests, then this will result in an underproduction of health care and education in the provinces because the provinces are not internalizing the spillover effects between the provinces of health care and education. Also, with respect to coordination, health care, education & the economy are deeply linked. A more educated and healthy population leaders to a more productive population and thus a better economy. A better economy can lead to richer people, which can lead to better health outcomes and education. Demanding that the federal government manage the economy while having little control over health care and education does not make sense. Implement proportional representation, then gerrymandering is impossible. Give all provinces the right to self determination & the right to separate via regular referendums on remaining in Canada (but otherwise eliminate them). This will create a strong incentive for the federal government to satisfy the needs to the different provinces because if a province feels too alienated then they will leave.

Constitutional reform is needed, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the kind of reform needed. I'd prefer we attain constitutionally protected freedom of speech (i.e. abolish section 1 of the charter, or better yet, get a new charter), abolish the monarchy & abolish the failed reserve system & indian act. Better to abolish the provinces. The provinces cause an unnecessary duplication of costs (need more education ministers, MPs, bureaucrats, rules and regulations, etc.) and make it near impossible to coordinate economic, education, environmental and health policy.

I think that people should be allowed to discuss the merits of terrorism in a free society. Short of direct incitement to violence, it should be allowed. The best way to counter bad ideas is more speech, not censorship.

What's so bad about giving 'fringe' parties representation? If a Communist, ISIS or Nazi party gains enough support to justify a seat, I say let them have representation so that their ideas can be heard and then challenged. The Netherlands have no such threshold. As a result, they even get Armenian genocide denying parties in parliament. I say that's a good thing because it means Armenian genocide denial can be addressed rather than ignored and swept under the rug.

Yep, I just love how our politicians like Trudeau, Harper and Mulcair have no problem with being allied with a country that labels me a terrorist for being atheist, wants my gay friends killed, thinks apostates should be killed, beheads women that go shopping without a male escort, and funds wahabbism/salafism, which leads to the creation of groups like ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab and Al Nusra. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Unfortunately, due to our failed first past the post system, we don't really have much choice when it comes to elections.

Can we leave NATO please? Or at least kick Turkey out? How much of this nonsense must occur before the people in power realize that an alliance with Erdogan doesn't make sense.

They fund Wahhabism/Salafism, the ideology that lead to ISIS...