dinosaurs said:

Enlil said:

It isn't surprising to hear someone from Canada with that opinion.  Canada isn't known for it's protection of free speech.

---

Canada also isn't known for having a fascistic govt that openly declares its intent to cheat in elections in order to cling to power. 

I'd take a reasonably nerfed freedom of speech ala Canada's over whatever the fuck we have going on here.

---

Enlil said:

Awebig Throy said:

In America, we don't have dictators, so punishing a man for being unable to convince 435 other people to keep his promise would be unjust.

---

That's one of the reasons I wish we had a parliamentary system. Makes it harder to scapegoat.

dinosaurs said:

Enlil said:

It isn't surprising to hear someone from Canada with that opinion.  Canada isn't known for it's protection of free speech.

---

Canada also isn't known for having a fascistic govt that openly declares its intent to cheat in elections in order to cling to power. 

I'd take a reasonably nerfed freedom of speech ala Canada's over whatever the fuck we have going on here.

---

Enlil said:

dinosaurs said:

Enlil said:

It isn't surprising to hear someone from Canada with that opinion.  Canada isn't known for it's protection of free speech.

---

Canada also isn't known for having a fascistic govt that openly declares its intent to cheat in elections in order to cling to power. 

I'd take a reasonably nerfed freedom of speech ala Canada's over whatever the fuck we have going on here.

---

Short sighted af, but whatever gives you the quickest bang for your buck, homie.

Canada is known for putting people in prison for expressing unpopular opinions, however.

---

AlChemicalResearch said:

didn't canada cut off banking to a bunch of truckers who were laying on their horns for a few days?

Also the 2011 federal elections in Canada come to mind. Then there was the 1998 election where there was vote-rigging. Not to mention the Chinese infiltration of your government.

Canada isn't some panacea of fairness. Maybe its the lack of freedom of speech that makes you think it is.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Can you link us to an example of a criminalized unpopular opinion? -- n.

---

Quote:

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

---

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Can you link us to an example of a criminalized unpopular opinion? -- n.

---

Quote:

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

---

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Can you link us to an example of a criminalized unpopular opinion? -- n.

---

Quote:

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

---

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

---

Where does it mention unpopular opinions?

One could question why antisemitism and Holocaust denial need a specific carve-out, but it still lands firmly within the realm of 'public promotion of hatred' -- which, as a lawyer should already understand, does not use "unpopular opinion" as criteria for conviction.

---

Quote:

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

[...]

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;

---

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Can you link us to an example of a criminalized unpopular opinion? -- n.

---

Quote:

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

---

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

---

Where does it mention unpopular opinions?

One could question why antisemitism and Holocaust denial need a specific carve-out, but it still lands firmly within the realm of 'public promotion of hatred' -- which, as a lawyer should already understand, does not use "unpopular opinion" as criteria for conviction.

---

I guess we disagree yet again. Holocaust denial is an unpopular opinion and nowhere is hatred mentioned as an element of that crime.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

The Canadian government defines antisemitism as "hatred toward Jews"

---

Quote:

lolocaust: Doesn't work anymore wtf

---

shivas.wisdom said:

The Canadian government defines antisemitism as "hatred toward Jews", so it's implied -- it's also a subsection under the more general "wilfully promoting hatred" -- the law is criminalizing using genocide denial to promote hatred of a protected group, and this becomes even more obvious when one examines the accompanying criminal acts: "advocating genocide" and "publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace".

Furthermore,

Quote:

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

[...]

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true;

---

Even unpopular opinions like Holocaust denial are allowed if they are truthful or relevant to public interest.

No freedoms are absolute, including the first amendment -- especially where one human right bumps into another, like balancing the freedom of expression with the freedom from discrimination -- slippery slope arguments notwithstanding, I think the Canadian government has a pretty good historical record of when speech is criminalized as hatred -- perhaps you could refer me to one of the more egregious examples of a Canadian being jailed for what you term an "unpopular opinion"?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

AlChemicalResearch said:

didn't canada cut off banking to a bunch of truckers who were laying on their horns for a few days?

Also the 2011 federal elections in Canada come to mind. Then there was the 1998 election where there was vote-rigging. Not to mention the Chinese infiltration of your government.

Canada isn't some panacea of fairness. Maybe its the lack of freedom of speech that makes you think it is.

---

Canada had federal elections in 1997 and 2011, but I'm unaware of any significant controversy regarding vote-rigging -- you'll have to expand on that thought if you want to make a point -- especially considering all that supposed freedom of speech in the USA hasn't prevented multiple election controversies going back decades -- Bush vs Gore ringing any bells?

The emergencies act was invoked for more than just honking trucks, but that was absolutely very controversial use of a very controversial piece of Canadian law -- and it was the very first time it was ever used -- it had since been found to have been an unlawful use by the Canadian courts -- specifically because it unreasonably limited freedom of expression, and other protected rights -- and those legal decisions will ideally limit any use of the emergencies act going forward.

Of course, anyone who thinks that any law or freedom will protect them from a government that has decided to ignore them, is just fooling themselves

---