Free Speech in Canada, a myth?

[Jack Weber]

Yeah Canada is getting pretty paranoid - its the political thing. leftists tend to allow free speach - right wingers only let their message get out, one of the difference we are seeing. Right wingers are way more moody and fussy, bunch of female dogs.

Leftists tend to allow free speech???

Uh..I've seen the left,and it's pro-free speech crowd in action...The term feeble minded simpering bedwetters comes to mind.I have no interest in the political right,but they are on the correct side of the free speech debate in this country....

[William Ashley]

Leftists tend to allow free speech???

Uh..I've seen the left,and it's pro-free speech crowd in action...The term feeble minded simpering bedwetters comes to mind.I have no interest in the political right,but they are on the correct side of the free speech debate in this country....

Hey think what you'd like. But let me tell you that you are wrong. While don't get this to mean one party left leaning communist nations tend to allow more free speech than right leaning totalitarian fascist dictatorships. What I mean is people who respect civil rights and individual rights tend to be on the left side of the divide. Free speech is a "leftist" issue. In the social vs. individual spectrum you have the social left which allows free expression, and supports right to communication belief etc.. the right side limits things via censorship.

In this country you are sadly wrong, the conservatives actively limit communication punitively, and have put inplace means of furthering censorship and supported these in the courts, and other governmental institutions. The Conservative government if you would call it "the right wing" in Canada (I know it is getting harder with Iggy's liberals), is definately not in support of individual rights, or clarity and openness in government or the country as a whole. Very disgusting when overt attempts to limit and attack those notions can be seen in hundreds of examples around the country.

If you don't support free speech I can understand how you don't have a firm grasp on reality.

LEFT WING ISSUE - FREE SPEECH

RIGHT WING ISSUE - CENSORSHIP

LEFT WANTS FREE SPEECH

RIGHT WANTS CENSORSHIP

LEFT DOESNT WANT CENSORSHIP

RIGHT DOESNT WANT FREE SPEECH

pretty clear cut.

Edited April 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Canada's law books arent centuries old...

They're as old as England's. We stem from the same Common Law source as the UK, the United States and most of the former parts of the British Empire.

You need to read some history, my friend. You're ignorance is profound. I'll even wager you're sufficiently uneducated as to think that our constitution only dates to 1982, even though legislation like the Bill of Rights of 1689 is still part of our constitutional framework. Heck, I'll bet you're sufficiently unread as to know that decisions, for instance, on Native Rights reference the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And this, folks, is why we have idiocies like hate laws. Foolish people raised on a diet of bad history and a lack of curiosity assuming their conclusions and make profoundly idiotic statements like the one above.

Edited April 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Born Free]

They're as old as England's.

Unlike the majority of countries whose basic law derives from one document, Canada's basic law derives not only from a set of documents known as Constitution Acts, but also a set of unwritten laws and conventions. This comprises of all the acts passed since 1867 up to and including 1998. As a result, all constitutional documents during that time period have the force of law.

Amongst those documents cited, there are other important documents worth mentioning also, that have to do in one way or another with the development of Canada's constitution, as well as that of the country. A few of these are the London Resolutions of 1866 and the Quebec Sign Law, Bill 178 of 1988, as well as the Federal law binding Parliament to use a self-imposed constitutional amending formula.

There are other documents that relate to Canada's development as a country, such as those predating Confederation, which do not hold the force of law, as each act was superseded by the other until the passing and proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1867. Some of these documents include the Charter of Hudson's Bay, the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the Quebec Act, 1774.

Cheers,

[William Ashley]

laws in canada go back to time immemorable.

[bush_cheney2004]

They're as old as England's. We stem from the same Common Law source as the UK, the United States and most of the former parts of the British Empire.

Ahem...by definition, the United States was never part of the "British Empire". I think you mean former Colonies.

[Argus]

What I mean is people who respect civil rights and individual rights tend to be on the left side of the divide.

Are you trolling? People on the Left tend to be far less favourable to individual rights, and far more accepting of the need to suppress those rights in the interests (however imagined) of the community or some segment of the community at large. Examples abound, including ordering privately owned businesses to provide entrances and facilities for the disabled, requiring privately owned businesses to serve people of both gender, or all races, regardless of their desires, requiring individuals to cease and desist offensive statements/speech and behaviour which offends or may offend some segment of the community.

It is the Right which supports individual rights, which says that what a person does with or on their property, or what they want to say, however ignorant, is their business.

Free speech is not a "leftist" issue. In the social vs. individual spectrum you have the social left which wants to supress free expression, and does not support right to communication belief etc.. the right side doesn't want to limit things via censorship.

Fixed that for you.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Ahem...by definition, the United States was never part of the "British Empire". I think you mean former Colonies.

I guess it depends on what you define as the "Empire". In absolute terms, I guess you couldn't really call it the British Empire until the Victorian Era, and in particular until she convinced Disraeli to have her named Empress of India. But in real terms, England had a growing overseas empire since the 16th century, and the colonies that made up the United States were part of that empire at the Act of Union which transformed England and Scotland into the United Kingdom, and modern Great Britain was born.

At any rate, my point is that pretty much every English-speaking country in the world gained its legal system from the Common Law, which, while obviously having diverged greatly since each country gained independence from Britain. Not even in the US where a revolution and a new constitution severed any legal ties with Great Britain, the Common Law was and still is used in most states (I think Louisiana is the only exception). It certainly is still used in Canada, so for someone to say our legal system doesn't predate our creation is ludicrous.

[ToadBrother]

Unlike the majority of countries whose basic law derives from one document, Canada's basic law derives not only from a set of documents known as Constitution Acts, but also a set of unwritten laws and conventions. This comprises of all the acts passed since 1867 up to and including 1998. As a result, all constitutional documents during that time period have the force of law.

Amongst those documents cited, there are other important documents worth mentioning also, that have to do in one way or another with the development of Canada's constitution, as well as that of the country. A few of these are the London Resolutions of 1866 and the Quebec Sign Law, Bill 178 of 1988, as well as the Federal law binding Parliament to use a self-imposed constitutional amending formula.

There are other documents that relate to Canada's development as a country, such as those predating Confederation, which do not hold the force of law, as each act was superseded by the other until the passing and proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1867. Some of these documents include the Charter of Hudson's Bay, the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the Quebec Act, 1774.

Cheers,

The Bill of Rights of 1689 is still in force in every state where the Queen is recognized as Sovereign. In particular, the issues dealing with the Succession are still in force in Canada. The Bill of Rights of 1689 predates the formation of the Dominion of Canada by nearly 200 years.

For an even more ancient example, look up Habeas corpus. There weren't even any Englishmen in North America at that time. Our legal system can trace its roots back to the Anglo-Saxon laws, and probably earlier to the ancient Germanic laws.

Edited April 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

.... But in real terms, England had a growing overseas empire since the 16th century, and the colonies that made up the United States were part of that empire at the Act of Union which transformed England and Scotland into the United Kingdom, and modern Great Britain was born.

True, but I welcome the opportunity to point out that the very existence of the United States rejects any such association by definition. The United States of America was never part of Britain, Great or otherwise.

At any rate, my point is that pretty much every English-speaking country in the world gained its legal system from the Common Law, which, while obviously having diverged greatly since each country gained independence from Britain. Not even in the US where a revolution and a new constitution severed any legal ties with Great Britain, the Common Law was and still is used in most states (I think Louisiana is the only exception). It certainly is still used in Canada, so for someone to say our legal system doesn't predate our creation is ludicrous.

Again, the Colonies and United States had a history that includes far more than Great Britain. Common Law provisions were also incorporated from the Dutch, Spanish, and French.

Edited April 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Again, the Colonies and United States had a history that includes far more than Great Britain. Common Law provisions were also incorporated from the Dutch, Spanish, and French.

French Common Law?

[bush_cheney2004]

French Common Law?

Louisiana.

[Smallc]

Louisiana.

That would be civil law.

[bush_cheney2004]

That would be civil law.

Oui?

[bjre]

http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts/2007-01-Marc_Lemire/May_10_2007.pdf

CASE FOR HEARING: Page 4793:

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

Dean Steacy is from Canadian Human Rights Commission

[Born Free]

The Bill of Rights of 1689 is still in force in every state where the Queen is recognized as Sovereign. In particular, the issues dealing with the Succession are still in force in Canada. The Bill of Rights of 1689 predates the formation of the Dominion of Canada by nearly 200 years.

For an even more ancient example, look up Habeas corpus. There weren't even any Englishmen in North America at that time. Our legal system can trace its roots back to the Anglo-Saxon laws, and probably earlier to the ancient Germanic laws.

There are other documents that relate to Canada's development as a country, such as those predating Confederation, which do not hold the force of law

[Born Free]

For an even more ancient example, look up Habeas corpus. There weren't even any Englishmen in North America at that time. Our legal system can trace its roots back to the Anglo-Saxon laws, and probably earlier to the ancient Germanic laws.

The substantive law in Canada respecting habeas corpus and other prerogative writs or forms of judicial relief was derived from the laws of England and Wales and still contains many similar substantive features. However, Canada has developed its own procedures for applying the principles of habeas corpus.