Is China actually a Fascist regime?

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You have the freedom to carry guns around a lot. I don't see that you have much else that others don't. You think the US has property rights? US cities and states can take your property any time they feel the need. That includes giving it to property developers to build new homes or shopping malls.

And in the other direction, a larger percentage of your population is in prison than in any other nation on earth, including China. In fact, your incarceration rate is three times China's and twice that of Russia.

Privileges are not rights. Constitutional protection matters, pretending otherwise is asinine.

[Argus]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Privileges are not rights. Constitutional protection matters, pretending otherwise is asinine.

Reality is what matters. Living in fear is not a freedom.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

In america the right to bear arms and free speech are one in the same 

In America the second amendment helps secure the first, and they aren't privileges granted by the government when they view those privileges to be reasonable.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Reality is what matters. Living in fear is not a freedom.

Reality is that in Canada there are no constitutional protections, and all your privileges are determined what the government deems to be reasonable. That is not the case in America, that is reality, you are simply putting your head in the sand.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

In America the second amendment helps secure the first, and they aren't privileges granted by the government when they view those privileges to be reasonable.

That's a nice way of saying "tell me what I want to hear, or else"

Free speech in Canada is covered under section 2.  

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

That's a nice way of saying "tell me what I want to hear, or else"

Free speech in Canada is covered under section 2.  

Section 33 overrides that. Ain't no Notwithstanding Clause in the American constitution.

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Section 33 overrides that. Ain't no Notwithstanding Clause in the American constitution.

Notwithstanding clause can be challenged.  That's why we have that supreme court thingy.  

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Notwithstanding clause can be challenged.  That's why we have that supreme court thingy.  

Yeah, and them being challenged doesn't mean they will be overturned. It is perfectly constitution to restrict your right to free speech under the Notwithstanding Clause, the Supreme Court will side against free speech. Hate speech laws haven't been struck down, and they aren't going to be, you don't have free speech unless the government finds your use of that right to be reasonable.

This is not a conspiracy, it's how Canada actually works. Y'all are just ignorant of how Canada actually works and when you find out how it works, you decry it as a conspiracy theory so you can feel better about the shotgun marriage you love so much.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah, and them being challenged doesn't mean they will be overturned. It is perfectly constitution to restrict your right to free speech under the Notwithstanding Clause, the Supreme Court will side against free speech.

Depends on the type of speech.  Some speech is not worthy of freedom.  

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Depends on the type of speech.  Some speech is not worthy of freedom.  

You don't even support free speech, and think freedom from freedom, is real freedom. Quelle surprise. When brainwashed Canadians actually find out they don't have real free speech, they simply move the goalposts to "yeah, but that's a good thing".

American Freedom Derangement Syndrome is a helluva drug.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process.

 

this ain't China or the u.s. where you get tossed in prison for stealing someone's oxygen.  

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Reality is that in Canada there are no constitutional protections, and all your privileges are determined what the government deems to be reasonable. That is not the case in America, that is reality, you are simply putting your head in the sand.

The reality is that constitutions are pieces of paper you can wipe your ass with. They don't protect anything. Which is why the Republican base supports Trump. They know their constitution is worthless and know that if he can appoint enough hard right conservatives the constitution will say what THEY want it to say. On the other hand, they fear that if the Democrats can appoint their people the constitution will say what THEY want it to - including doing away with most of the 2nd amendment protections.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process.

 

this ain't China or the u.s. where you get tossed in prison for stealing someone's oxygen.  

That ain't free speech. Hate speech is free speech.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

The reality is that constitutions are pieces of paper you can wipe your ass with. They don't protect anything. Which is why the Republican base supports Trump. They know their constitution is worthless and know that if he can appoint enough hard right conservatives the constitution will say what THEY want it to say. On the other hand, they fear that if the Democrats can appoint their people the constitution will say what THEY want it to - including doing away with most of the 2nd amendment protections.

The Republican base supports Trump because he nominated judges that will prevent activist democrat judges from interpreting away their freedoms.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

That ain't free speech. Hate speech is free speech.

Well hate speech is a crime here.  As it should be.  

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

Well hate speech is a crime here.  As it should be.  

No it shouldn't be. You just hate free speech and are glad you don't have it, because you are beyond reason and feel safe if people just can't say mean words.

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

No it shouldn't be. You just hate free speech and are glad you don't have it, because you are beyond reason and feel safe if people just can't say mean words.

No, I like free speech.  What I dont like is stupid idiots who run around spewing out racial slurs like it's cool or something.  What it makes them look like is an ignorant savage doofus.  

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

No, I like free speech.  What I dont like is stupid idiots who run around spewing out racial slurs like it's cool or something.  What it makes them look like is an ignorant savage doofus.  

You don't like free speech, you only like free speech that doesn't offend anyone, that's not being pro-free speech. Looking like an ignorant savage doofus does not mean you shouldn't have free speech, that's just stupid.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

You don't like free speech, you only like free speech that doesn't offend anyone, that's not being pro-free speech.

Not true.  If it offends someone if I use the word $#!+ when something goes wrong, I dont care.  I dont get offended by that, unless there are kids around.  Words like the n word and so on are just completely unnecessary.  

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Not true.  If it offends someone if I use the word $#!+ when something goes wrong, I dont care.  I dont get offended by that, unless there are kids around.  Words like the n word and so on are just completely unnecessary.  

Whether they are justly offended or not is irrelevant. It being unnecessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected free speech. You don't have to like what people say, to defend their right to say it. People who defend only the speech they like or find to be necessary are not pro-free speech.

If you support hate speech laws, you are not pro-free speech.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Whether they are justly offended or not is irrelevant. It being unnecessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected free speech. You don't have to like what people say, to defend their right to say it.

If I dont like what they say then why should I defend their right to say it?  

[DrYouth]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

You have the freedom to carry guns around a lot. I don't see that you have much else that others don't. You think the US has property rights? US cities and states can take your property any time they feel the need. That includes giving it to property developers to build new homes or shopping malls.

And in the other direction, a larger percentage of your population is in prison than in any other nation on earth, including China. In fact, your incarceration rate is three times China's and twice that of Russia.

Neither Yzer nor Dougie are Americans.

They are Canadians that worship the gods of the USA.

Let's face it... Canada is under the spell of the Loonie Left...

But much of the USA is under the same spell.... or under the spell of it's exact opposite.

The Loonie Left is more loonie in many American States and Cities than here in Canada...

I'm not happy with the loonieness of the ascendant left... but I don't see USA as offering real solutions to the problem.

We'll have to figure our way through this in our own way.

 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Whether they are justly offended or not is irrelevant. It being unnecessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected free speech. You don't have to like what people say, to defend their right to say it.

It's not the Canadian way, Canada is and always have been a nanny state at the expense of freedom, there is no First Amendment in Canada for a reason ; Canadians don't want freedom, they want the government authority to police thought and speech which is deemed offensive by the establishment orthodoxy.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

If I dont like what they say then why should I defend their right to say it?  

Because someone might not like what you say, and then demand your free speech be taken away. If you don't stand up for them, they won't stand up for you.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Cannucklehead said:

If I dont like what they say then why should I defend their right to say it?  

lol.  That is the essence of Canada right there.   He doesn't even understand, this is what Canadians are like, he's a poster child.