(February 10, 2021 at 1:23 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Section 2 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms suggests otherwise.
Profoundly wrong, or bad faith?
If what you intended to express was that your country's standing with free speech could be improved - then..sure, so could ours? That could only be relevant to the item in question if the item in question is a good example of exactly that - which...frankly, it's not. Our domestics are your internationals. Ours fund yours... and yours are affiliated with ours. You could more easily argue the case that the us is a state sponsor of terror in canada than enacting financial penalties for terrorist acts is an abrogation of free speech in either of our countries.
Designating the proud boys a terrorist organization does not and cannot prevent a white supremacist from speaking, or white supremacy as an ideology from being spread.
Just because speech is called free, that does not make it so. When you outlaw speech that is not outright calling for violence, that is called restricted speech, not free speech. Free speech can not exist if you don't allow "hate speech". That's called limited speech, because you are literally restricting and limiting what can be expressed.
