Is China actually a Fascist regime?

[Cannucklehead]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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.

So you want me to stand up and fight for someone's right to hurl insults at me.  

Ya.  

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

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.

That's what I've been saying. First Canadians pretend they have free speech and it's a conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise, then when that is shown to be incorrect, they move the goalposts to "yeah, but it's a good thing we don't have free speech". Canadians simply hate freedom, and think freedom from freedom is real freedom.

[Rue]

25 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.

First off the US Constitution and its interaction with its Supreme Court is no different than ours. To look for a binding interpretation of what the US Constitution’s words mean – other than someone or an interest group trying to  promulgate through Congress a new amendment process to make a new constitutional declaration – which will probably never happen, one must look to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The US Constitution's purpose was to limit Presidential, House of Representative and Senatorial powers which is different in that sense because Canada's Charter was written as a political manouver to repatriate the constitution not much else. Its founders, Professor Hogg and  Pierre Trudeau admitted they never envisioned it being used in the wide sense it is today and simply thought it would be seldom used like the previous Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to give as wide an application as possible to protect individual rights as it has would suggest if any province ever used a not withstanding clause to push through legislation that violates ibdividual rights and then uses that clause to protect it, it would NOT work. The reason Quebec was able to push through the language laws it has is precisely because the federal government won't launch a Charter challenge which then would trigger its use of the not withstanding clause. The not withstanding clause would only be invoked by a province AFTER a charter challenge to one of its laws which has never happened and its subject the SCC ruling on it..

The Quebec government threatened it over language laws and Ford the Premier of Ontario threatened it over his arguing the province had ultimate authority over municipal laws, but its never been invoked. The not withstanding clause was thrown in at the last second as a political candy to placate Rene Levesque who would have otherwise refused to repatriate the Constitution to Canada which was the very point of the creation of the Charter of Rights. To get him to go along it was thrown in..

The Charter of Rights in Canada has been interpreted as widely as possible in favour of individual rights and freedoms to the point one has to wonder whether it could ever in any sense be used to limit a right now we have a plethora of decisions that state otherwise.

To say we have no rights in Canada is legally incorrect. Our system affords us as many rights as the US system does. I ask you to specify limits we do not have the US has. Please do not say gun ownership because not withstanding the regulations in Canada, we can own guns.

So please tell me what else is different in terms of limits.

That all said absolute legal freedom is an illusion. For a society to function it will eventually have to limit individual rights otherwise there would be a free for all of unlimited demands conflicting.

No right in that sense is absolute. Also what is a right and what is a privilege in law is muddled and unclear. We know for example you do not have a right to drive unless you follow preconditions. If in that sense having to follow preconditions before you can have the right to do something applies, we usually then say its a privilege not a right but that is not a true legal term. Privilege has been bastardized today to a subjective term used to describe anyone we think has more legal power than other.

In our society under the basic concept of the rule of law, no one is above the law so in a legal context no one is privileged in legal theory but in reality we use the term all the time to describe those we think have what we do not. Its a term of comparison and often distorted by envy or jealousy. Many things we see as privileges for others may very well be curses or negatives for such people creating added burdens and stress. Our laws are not supposed to define  people based on class privilege. Socialists believe they do but then socialists advocate a state run system that creates alternative privileged classes favoured by government programs and policies so it is all relative in just who it is we give rights or privileges to.

The point is there is no legal difference in the extent of our freedom compared to Americans and I ask anyone to point out the limits in Canada that do not exist in the US.

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

So you want me to stand up and fight for someone's right to hurl insults at me.  

Ya.  

Yes.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's what I've been saying. First Canadians pretend they have free speech and it's a conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise, then when that is shown to be incorrect, they move the goalposts to "yeah, but it's a good thing we don't have free speech". Canadians simply hate freedom, and think freedom from freedom is real freedom.

Soft as warm baby shit Canadian nanny police state, they're all freedom haters, but they're gonna get what they deserve when it is turned back on them.

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yes.

Lol ok good luck with that.  

[Rue]

Nanny police state. I have no idea what that means. To equate Canada with say Nazi Germany or Stalinist or Putin Russia or Pinochet Chile or China or other totalitarian states is what it sounds to do. As for any state being a nanny state, all states are tits. All state governments provide tits for their citizens to suck on. That is the purpose of a state government. Calling a nipple a nipple is pointless.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Lol ok good luck with that.  

In America I don't need luck, that is constitutionally protected free speech, secured by 5-4 Republican SCOTUS majority that is soon to be a 6-3 Republican SCOTUS majority. Free speech might not fly in Canada, because Canadians hate freedom and think freedom from freedom is real freedom, but it does fly south of the border. Ain't no bullshit hate speech laws in America, and if they try to pass such laws, the SCOTUS will shoot that shit down, and there will be no Notwithstanding Clause to stop them.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

In America I don't need luck, that is constitutionally protected free speech, secured by 5-4 Republican SCOTUS majority that is soon to be a 6-3 Republican SCOTUS majority. Free speech might not fly in Canada, because Canadians hate freedom and think freedom from freedom is real freedom, but it does fly south of the border.

F@ck Canada, it's a fake country anyways.

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

In America I don't need luck, that is constitutionally protected free speech, secured by 5-4 Republican SCOTUS majority that is soon to be a 6-3 Republican SCOTUS majority. Free speech might not fly in Canada, because Canadians hate freedom and think freedom from freedom is real freedom, but it does fly south of the border. Ain't no bullshit hate speech laws in America, and if they try to pass such laws, the SCOTUS will shoot that shit down, and there will be no Notwithstanding Clause to stop them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

 

Libel and Slander being exceptions is cool with me. Hate speech laws are not. America has real free speech, no other nation on this earth follows suit. America can lead a horse to water, but it can't make them drink.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Libel and Slander being exceptions is cool with me. Hate speech laws are not.

Well then run for potus and change it. 

Or deal with it.  

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Well then run for potus and change it. 

Or deal with it.  

Can't run for POTUS, being born in Canada. I am dealing with it, behind enemy lines, in Loonie Left Hamilton.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, DrYouth said:

Neither Yzer nor Dougie are Americans.

My father was American my mother is Canadian, I'm holding both passports right now, I've simply adopted the position of America first in the face of the death of Canada.

[Cannucklehead]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Can't run for POTUS, being born in Canada. I am dealing with it, behind enemy lines, in Loonie Left Hamilton.

Steel town.  That explains everything.  

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Steel town.  That explains everything.  

Not really, since I vehemently disagree with the political leanings of the vast majority of Hamiltonian's.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

16 minutes ago, Rue said:

Nanny police state. I have no idea what that means. To equate Canada with say Nazi Germany or Stalinist or Putin Russia or Pinochet Chile or China or other totalitarian states is what it sounds to do. As for any state being a nanny state, all states are tits. All state governments provide tits for their citizens to suck on. That is the purpose of a state government. Calling a nipple a nipple is pointless.

Only in america can someone run around calling other countries a nanny state while they live in fear of a lawsuit over coffee being too hot.  

ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT! 

[Yzermandius19]

I mean, if you project my views on the rest of Hamilton, you are going to get a really mistaken impression of the views of most Hamiltonian's. Most of them would agree with you on the anti-free speech tip.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I mean, if you project my views on the rest of Hamilton, you are going to get a really mistaken impression of the views of most Hamiltonian's. Most of them would agree with you on the anti-free speech tip.

Fatty Arbucklehead and Rue da Jue are classic Canadians, this is what Canada is all about, knee jerk authoritarians who don't even know what freedom is.

 

[Cannucklehead]

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I mean, if you project my views on the rest of Hamilton, you are going to get a really mistaken impression of the views of most Hamiltonian's. Most of them would agree with you on the anti-free speech tip.

Oh, does my speech offend you?  

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Oh, does my speech offend you?  

No, but if it did, unlike you, I wouldn't be calling to ban that speech, freedom hater.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, DrYouth said:

 

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

 

You never will, because Canadians do not support speech which anyone may deem offensive, and there are endless number of Canadians who will claim offense.

Canadians stand for nothing, Canadians fight for nothing, and they hate freedom, they want a nanny police state to dictate, and the loonie left now controls it,

[Argus]

Enough with the constitution crap before Charles comes in here and puts the boots to the topic.

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

Enough with the constitution crap before Charles comes in here and puts the boots to the topic.

It relates, because China hates freedom too, and Canada is selling out to them. The Chicoms pander to Canadians hatred of freedom to persuade them to sell out even more and they buy it, hook, line and sinker.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

It relates, because China hates freedom too, and Canada is selling out to them. The Chicoms pander to Canadians hatred of freedom to persuade them to sell out even more and they buy it, hook, line and sinker.

Oh bullshit. Canadians have no time for China now, except for a few idiots in the Liberal government.