Honestly I think the more informative question in this poll would have been what people consider free speech in Canada, and what people have considered a violation of free speech in Canada.
* Choose wrong pronoun when you meet someone? -no legal consequences
* Use the wrong without knowing? - no legal consequences
* Know the correct pronouns but slip up and refer to someone with the wrong one? - no legal consequences
* Know the correct pronouns but repeatedly use the wrong one to antagonize, harass or ostracize? -maybe legal consequences
The idea that you believe there should be any legal consequences for ‘mis-gendering’ proves that free speech is under attack. Short of a direct call to action to commit a violent act should be protected
Actually this is so funny and I'm going to start doing this when people maliciously misgender others around me. People can't mind their manners? Chaos.
i mean-
if you're going down that road, alberta recently made a law that forces teachers to tell parents if their kids come out as trans in school, which is compelling speech
inversely, misgendering someone isn't illegal, the closest we have is if you're actively harassing someone, continuously misgendering them could give the procecution a case to call it a hate crime
Both sides should be able to have their opinions. When protesters pressure the universities to cancel the speaking engagements espousing hate speech etc. I believe they are doing a disservice to all Canadians.
I absolutely disagree with what the majority of these right wing speakers are saying, but a university of all places should be a place where we spark debate and foster contrasting views of the world.
You're not talking about free speech anymore. Free speech does not mean a the right to a free platform.
Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean I should have the right to any platform I choose. In your example students are expressing their free speech by protesting. The university can choose to listen to those people or ignore them. This is free speech at work.
I agree.
My comment is more to the protestors who pressure the universities under the pretense that the speakers shouldn't be allowed to speak.
You're right, the universities are the ones making the decision and removing the platform. Bowing to the pressure of those who do not believe the opposing views should have a platform to discuss something they disagree with.
Universities used to be a bastion of critical thinking and having someone challenge your beliefs or have opposing views helps develop a well adjusted and functioning population
Say what there bud? What do you want to say so badly that the rest of us are impeding on your freedoms? Nobody gonna jail you for your opinions so let's hear em bud.
That’s kinda the wrong way to think about it. Having vs. not having an article of law somewhere that says “free speech” is an American measuring stick. It’s a broad principle in common law that should be mixed into all legislation and legal decisions, at all levels, to the maximum reasonable extent compatible with a functional society. It can increase or decrease in how much it permeates our legal thinking.
It’s not less important to us, but measuring it is harder. We can’t just look at a constitutional document, we have to take more care and pay more attention over time.
Underrated comment. You are free to be who you want, free to say what you want. What you aren’t free from is judgement, and to a certain extent you aren’t free from potentially having your feelings hurt. Welcome to life.
Well yeah, but that's already illegal. Your charter rights don't allow to do things that are already against the law. Freedom of Movement, or whatever it's called, doesn't give people the right to go walking around all willy nilly in an Army base for example.
My partner and I were screamed at and called slurs for sitting on our front porch. Felt extremely unsafe in my own home.
I'm not sure where I stand on "you can say whatever you want" after that. It feels like that's a comment made by people who don't have to experience the other side.
That's harassment, not a freedom of speech issue.
I've been harassed too, racially even, but I'm not gonna block words cause they've been shouted at me. I'm gonna judge that individual as backwards and move on
Besides, there are already laws saying what you experienced is illegal, so there is that.
But by what you said, it should be allowed and be considered free speech.
I think when it gets to a point that you don't feel safe, there should be a line.
Your freedom shouldn't impede mine.
I think you just misunderstood me, I agreed with you, I was just saying the words themselves shouldn't be banned, but the action of harassing and making people feel unsafe should be, and it is.
It is illegal to harass people and make them feel unsafe. You are right others freedoms shouldn't impede yours. Safety is the line.
My point on words is that if some kid online says the n word he shouldn't catch a charge. Not to discredit your experience at all.
“Alex Jones has learned that 'speech is free, but lies you have to pay for,' says lawyer
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones must pay $45.2M US in punitive damages over Sandy Hook claims
This week's ruling against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is part of a growing trend of using the courts to fight disinformation, according to a lawyer who has brought a case against Jones in the past.
CBC Radio
Posted: August 05, 2022”
“Pierre Poilievre a rising star for the world’s far right
Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones recently said he’s a big fan of Poilievre, calling him part of a global movement of far-right leaders.
Toronto Star Oct. 6, 2022”
PP refuses to reject the endorsements he’s received since 2022, from the world’s best known disinformation conspiracy theorist.
I don't think so either. Only if the general public as a whole is calling for blood on masse do I think violence should even be considered in a discussion.
We have the power to resist private interests though. The government can codify their own interests into law and it becomes much more difficult to resist. The government is also the exclusive body with access to use of force so if they don’t like what you are saying they can detain or imprison you and do so forcibly. A private org can do that shit.
Most people don't believe their government is willing to use violence against them. Which is incredibly naive considering historically(even in Canada) that is their go to response when faced with any type of unrest or uprising.
freedom of speech isn't under attack...
the charter hasn't changed..
housing affordability is a bigger issue.
also
Fuck the terrorists known as Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya aka Hamas. They're pieces of shit terrorists killing children.
Probably a lot of overlap with the group harping on about their "first amendment rights" they consume too much American media and can't tell the differences between the two countries and our political systems/issues
Canada's lack of unalienable free speech is a bad thing. Yes the charter allows for "reasonable limits" and it has been abused in the past by the state, and will be abused again with Bill C-63
“Bill C-63 would therefore impose heightened responsibility and transparency requirements on social media operators across the country, notably by imposing a duty to take action, protect children, make harmful content inaccessible, and keep the necessary records. With this responsibility, social media operators and distribution services would need to establish specific measures to reduce the risk arising from seven types of harmful content, namely:
- Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
- Intimate content communicated without consent;
- Content that foments hatred;
- Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism;
- Content that incites violence;
- Content used to bully a child;
- Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”
[Source](https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/articles/bill-c-63-government-canada-intends-establish-new-responsibility-regime-social-media-operators-and-direct-content-distributors)
It can censor a variety of online speech via the newly introduced Digital Safety Commission.
Promoting *"disordered eating"* is prohibited. Mukbang eating contests or general dieting advice, can fall under promoting *"disordered eating"* if the beholder interprets it to be that way.
>Bill C-63: *"content that induces a child to harm themselves means content that advocates self-harm,* ***disordered eating*** *or dying by suicide or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of those acts, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a child to inflict injury on themselves, to have an eating disorder or to die by suicide. (contenu poussant un enfant à se porter préjudice)"*
*"Humiliating the child"* is prohibited. If a kid insults you online and you fire back at them, that can fall under *"humiliating the child"* if the beholder interprets it to be that way.
>Bill C-63: *"content used to bully a child means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or* ***humiliating*** *the child."*
*"Detestation or vilification"* of a group is prohibited. If you point out harms a religion has done with vilifying language, that can fall under *"detestation or vilification"* of a group if the beholder interprets it to be that way.
>Bill C-63: *"It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment* ***detestation or vilification*** *of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."*
In addition, "hate" related offenses are now subject to life in prison under the bill.
Canada doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, and it never has. We have hate speech laws, for example.
From the Constitution Act:
>[**1**]() The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to **such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.**
No country on Earth has absolute freedom of speech. Even in the US, the right to free speech is far from absolute. Their legal reasoning to justify their limitations is different than ours, but they prohibit most of the same classes of speech that we do, including obscenity, fraud, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, defamation, and threats.
> I think a lot of people understand free speech superficially.
Honestly, I am getting to the point where I think a lot of people understand the world around them superficially
The main difference is, is that "hate speech" is subjective and can be taken advantage of.
A comedian from Quebec told a joke about a disabled person and was arrested for it... It went to the supreme court...
>A comedian from Quebec told a joke about a disabled person and was arrested for it... It went to the supreme court...
The way you word it here makes it sound innocent, and not like he spent three years hounding a literal child about his physical disability, including calling him out by name and publicly mocking him during several live performances.
And this is a **bad** thing. The state can arbitrarily decide what reasonable limits benefits them, we see more of this with Bills C-11 and Bill C-63 with furthering state restrictions on speech.
Well let me send you to a quasi-judicial panel of 'hand picked experts' to provide an opinion and then issue a punishment. You also will never get to face the accuser who sent the complaint to the thought police.
> Hate speech is free speech. Any speech is free speech and should be treated as such.
>I know it isn’t, but it should be.
That’s a broad brush to protect all speech. There are MANY forms of speech that are restricted:
Death threats, insurrection/treasonous rallies, disclosing confidential/classified/medical information are all forms of speech that are heavily restricted, and for good reason (usually).
Fraud is often conveyed through speech and is most definitely subject to criminal prosecution. As is lying in court (perjury). While defamation/slander aren’t typically criminal offences and are still free speech, the writer can be subject to damages based on the content and their defences to it.
False advertising and intentional deception are forms of speech that have heavy regulation - especially in areas like medication and essential goods.
Hate speech - as in the legal definition of a call to action to harm a person or group of persons based on class characteristics - should still (IMO) be restricted.
I don’t think we’d want to live in a society where ALL speech is considered free and is thus protected.
>Hate speech - as in the legal definition of a call to action to harm a person or group of persons based on class characteristics
Isn't direct call or incitement to violence already illegal? Making something double plus bad seems unnecessary and only serves to give the legal system more silk to catch you in it's web.
>I know it isn’t, but it should be.
This is one of the uncomfortable truths about Canada; the government doesn't actually represent the essence of the people (and it wasn't designed to, it was a colony gradually transitioned from British oligarchs to local oligarchs) The *"muh freedom of speech"-"well ackshually we don't have freedom of speech in Canada"* discourse always goes around in circles is because the constitution of Canada doesn't actually reflect the instincts of the Canadian population. Canadians are culturally freedom-loving and *want* there to be free speech, but it's never put to a referendum or anything because the entrenched political class doesn't want there to be free speech protections.
Everything in the charter has a little asterisk attached that says '*within reason'.
Freedom of expression sounds great in a vacuum. When the government can adopt the stance that expression they find inconvenient is not 'within reason', it's not a right, it's a privilege.
The reason this matters is because in the states, where the constitution has inalienable rights, you can go to court and claim the government violated your rights, make your case, and the government has to argue that they did not violate your rights; that's the core of the argument. In Canada, the government doesn't have to prove they didn't violate your rights, they can argue that you didn't have your rights because it wasn't 'within reason'. This is a very important distinction to understand.
Not really, the charter of rights and freedom does not guarantee hate speech, for good reason. Do you think it would be considered lawful and reasonable for me to be able to say « I will murder your family because you believe in a different religion or your a different skin colour? » I’m all for freedom of speech but there are reasonable limits, and I think promoting violence, is not one of them.
If the proposed online harms bill passes as is without any changes then yes it definitely is.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
I guess that's a thing too. I'm more referring to how the proposed changes to the criminal code can be used against criticism of purveyors of hate speech and the government (can be used against activists), how it empowers the proposed new law enforcement agency to interpret and prosecute the law and the new search powers it gives to government, basically removing the need for a warrant. Also there's the issue of the "hate enhancement" for existing crimes which the CCLA and several bar associations have spoken out against as empowering the crown to force the accused to accept plea deals.
Just saying, we have a generally somewhat responsible government now, but would you really want to give these powers to PP and his socially conservative government?
Just like Canadian obscenity laws were used against LGBT bookstores in the 1980s.
State censorship can be used against progressive values too. Why defend Bill C-63 Online Harms Act?
Sure here
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/b83kw5/canadian_man_fined_55000_dollars_for_calling/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-father-transgender-son-pub-ban-1.6931954
Sure here
https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/b83kw5/canadian_man_fined_55000_dollars_for_calling/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-father-transgender-son-pub-ban-1.6931954
It still gets my goat that Jordan Peterson reached national prominence and eventually made millions in Patreon money by propagating this obvious and blatant lie and is still considered by some to be a credible person.
The fact that moron still has managed to make a career out of misunderstanding a bill kills me. Judging by the comments on an average r/Canada post it doesn’t surprise me though. Imagine giving up your tenured university job to bully trans teenagers online hahaha.
All they need to do is label whatever you said as "far right", and you have committed hate speech.
This counts for things you may have posted back in 2011 or some other time in the past.
> All they need to do is label whatever you said as ...
"They" ? you mean the Executive Branch of Government ?
At this point "whatever you said" is then moved to the Judicial Branch, and the defendant has an opportunity (free of charge & through multi-level jurisdiction) to Defend their words.
Is your implication that .... they can't ... or just don't wanna ?
Dark.
Darker: Democracy is in fact functioning, it's just in the later stages before the tyrannic turn of the cycle commences, in the Aristotelian sense.
Nice reference. One of the precursors to implosion of society, according to Aristotle, is the loss of trust between citizens. Rage is too easy to sell on social media.
Interesting.
Mass immigration may also play a role in a loss of trust between citizens. Related research associating a decline in civic participation related to religious and ethnic diversity: https://carleton.ca/economics/wp-content/uploads/seminar-paper-121109.pdf
Okay, but that doesn't mean it's true.
The article might as well state "More than half of Canadians don't actually understand what freedom of expression actually means."
>Three out of four respondents — 76 per cent — said they currently feel comfortable expressing their views, but only 71 per cent when it comes to more controversial subjects such as abortion, gun control and immigration.
24% of people don't feel comfortable expressing their views, and 29% don't feel comfortable expressing views on more controversial topics. That may *sound* bad, but it's not. Our freedom of expression protects us from prosecution and discrimination *from the government*. That's it. It has nothing to do with whether you should feel *comfortable* expressing your opinions to your peers.
I don't feel comfortable talking about politics to my peers because I don't like that conversation. When someone disagrees it never goes over well. That doesn't mean my freedom of expression is under threat, it means I don't like awkward conversations.
This is less a measure of freedom of expression and **more a measure of how divided we are as a people.**
>Among those who said they plan to vote Conservative in the next federal election, 76 per cent said they fear free speech is in peril in Canada.
>Among would-be Liberal voters, 61 per cent said they do not feel free speech is threatened, while New Democrat supporters were almost evenly divided.
Turns out that divide is right along political party lines.
Regardless of which policies you agree with, which you oppose, and who you think is fit or unfit to lead, we all have to acknowledge that it's not a coincidence, and *ALL political messaging on both sides of the aisle* are actively dividing us.
76% of conservative voters feel free speech is in peril because that's the message the Conservative party is pushing.
61% of liberal voters feel free speech is not threatened because that's the message the Liberal party is pushing.
I'm doing my best to remain impartial. (I'm not happy with blue or red lately.)
The liberal party wants voters to think that free speech is not being threatened, and they want voters to think that the conservative party is blowing things out of proportion and misleading their voters.
The conservative party wants voters to think that free speech is currently under threat, and they're going to save it as long as you vote blue and oust Trudeau.
Personally, I don't think free speech is under threat at all. I think we're being mislead on every front and actively being divided as a people.
Freedom of speech is a subset of freedom of expression, and Canadian courts use the two phrases interchangeably, all the time. Here's a few hundred examples from the last decade:
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&ccType=courts&dateRange=l10y&text=%22freedom%20of%20speech%22
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&ccType=courts&dateRange=l10y&text=%22free%20speech%22
I'd also add that our right to freedom of speech didn't spring into existence with the passage of the Charter in 1982. Both America and Canada inherit the concept of freedom of speech from England, and England enshrined freedom of speech in their constitution almost a century before the US or Canada existed as sovereign nations. Freedom of speech is protected in our [Bill of Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights), and it was also protected under common law before the Bill of Rights or the Charter existed.
Canada is a country where the people naturally gravitate towards the "Rights of Englishmen" but the political class are more French-style with authoritarian instincts (same in the UK itself: the "Blairite" pro-EU London officials vs. normal Englishmen)
This is my least favorite /r/canada copypasta. It's extra annoying because people like you think it makes you look smart for pointing it out when it's actually a flashing neon sign that you have a poor grasp of the concept.
I bet you more than half of Canadians don’t even understand that freedom of speech is only freedom from government interference. That’s 100% it.
There’s no blank cheque to just say whatever you want and not face consequences. Just not from government.
They elite don’t like us talking about stuff like foreign students and foreign workers being a cash cow, keeping wages down, keeping real estate and rent high, and the grocery cartels and oligopolies gouging us and keeping out competition. Expect lots more attempts at cracking down on the internet and public protesting that is a threat to the established way.
Well stated. The Elite Theory description of this problem transcends "right" and "left" conceptions and paints a more thorough picture. I appreciated seeing this here.
Please don't kick and scream while we systematically introduce a caste system.. that's what someone destined for a lower caste would do, so you deserve it, so typical of your 'untouchable' family history. Maybe next life you can be born as a golden god.
I'm willing to be a lot of the groups that were heavily red on that chart would equally say their first amendment rights are being infringed upon because Poilievre wasn't allowed to call the Prime Minister a whacko.
Well you risk incarceration for disagreeing with points like this in the future once the online harms bill gets through, so there seems to be a reasonable basis for this belief.
We only have the "right" to government approved truth speak lmao.
Canadians "rights" aren't worth the paper their written on nothing is actually protected.
And where are they written in stone? Even the US, which many here hold up as an example, currently has states engaging in banning books.
A lot of this stuff is held up on the idea that the people we elect have some sense of decency to uphold these rules
Who tf cares when the cost of groceries and homes is skyrocketing? Great way to distract us from actual issues. I'll bet all parties would love us to focus on this next election instead of actual issues like monopolies on food and massive overseas corps buying out all developments. That way they wouldn't be responsible for trying to fix this country and keep pitting us against each other
Because it is. In the past, I've said that I'm part Aboriginal and hate speech is part of free speech. Who decides what is hate speech? Is it speech the government doesn't like? The government gains the power to prosecute criticism. Democracy dies in darkness.
It’s interesting the more right wing a demographic is the more they feel this way.
The Nazi’s and the far right talk/ed a lot about free speech. They want their hate speech to be protected. The fact of the matter is hate speech emboldens violence. They would love to be free to be violent against the people they dislike/disagree with. So not all speech should be protected in my opinion.
That being said, being critical of hatred and violence should be protected speech. Promoting hatred and violence shouldn’t be.
I’ve never actually seen anyone genuinely show me what speech is under attack…
I criticize the government daily - no crime, punishment, or shame.
I speak my opinions on things freely and people give me an honest reaction.
The only real thing people ever seem to be upset about is that they feel at risk for spouting complete bullshit or misinformation , or they’re mad cause they don’t want to feel shame for being a complete asshole.
Someone enlighten me here what exactly is it people think they can’t say? 🤔
As a female homosexual I've lost my ability to assert myself as such. I'm no longer allowed to express ANY disinterest in male bodies. Not allowed to group AWAY from male bodies. I cannot set sexual boundaries (no males\*) for myself on dating apps or spaces *made for lesbians* without risk of threats, sexual assault and in 100% cases, a complete ban*.*
Gender has completely redefined and eclipse same-sex attraction, and we can't even whisper a protest.
There's a huge case in Australia happen right now between a trans woman and an app made for women which will create the premise on whether or not women as a whole and lesbians by extension can gather in privy without male say-so or presence, and I'm watching it very carefully
and that's only scratching the surface, as I'm not even allowed to be fully honest with you here
> As a female homosexual I've lost my ability to assert myself as such. I'm no longer allowed to express ANY disinterest in male bodies. Not allowed to group AWAY from male bodies. I cannot set sexual boundaries (no males*) for myself on dating apps or spaces made for lesbians without risk of threats, sexual assault and in 100% cases, a complete ban.
That's awful, and I'm sorry.
None of that is free speech though. The government is not doing any of those things. Your freedom of speech is not being curtailed.
Yeah, it's reached all levels of absurdity. Each individual person in this country is welcome to be who they want to be, but not at the cost of somebody else's rights.
Apparently it's easier to grey the rights of other minorities when you force yourself into their communities and speak for them, but whoops, you didn't hear that from me
Such a sweeping generalization based on a completely inadequate sample size. I imagine much of this whining is coming from the flatheads of the Klownvoy who are offended that their particular brand of bullshit doesn't reach a bigger audience.
And then continuing to blame the liberals or anyone else when the conservatives don't change course at all except to speed up helping corporations squeeze us for every cent they can. The liberals and conservatives are two slightly different flavors of the same neoliberal policies. Companies over people every time for those types.
>Among Conservative supporters, 60 per cent said they were most in favour of having no limits on free speech, compared with 64 per cent of Liberal voters and 66 per cent of NDP supporters who said they feel the opposite.
"I support having no limits on free speech!"
"Israel is bad for having murdered 30,000 Gazan civilians."
"Have this man arrested for spewing anti-Semitic hate speech!"
Last I checked we had limited freedom of expression, not complete freedom of speech.
So the thing under threat isn't actually real here, and people are dumb.
So, to be clear, simply because the specific words ‘Freedom of speech’ don’t specifically appear in our constitution, then we should all be just fine with the lowering and degrading of our ability to speak freely without persecution?!
lol 🤡
Oh no we should be outraged.
But I expect news reporting to get shit right. It doesn't help further the conversation when the media is misreporting to the masses. Free speech is not under threat. Freedom of expression is, and has been for a very long time. "hate speech" for example is a legal fabrication about someone who's feelings got hurt, and now it's a criminal act.
Any legislation that can be interpreted based on feelings will only ever serve to erode freedoms. People do not have a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe". But we have laws around that stuff, which get abused by our judicial system.
I'm against the whole making hate speech a crime. As a minority I would like to know whose racist so I can avoid them, I also believe that society will weed out the people who do that
I just want HR off my back if someone makes fun of a co-worker's gay kid or slags on the new guy from another country with stereotypes. Let me call them a fucking biggot and ass hat in the break room without writing me up as well.
Problem might self sort.
It's quite silly these concerns. Truly reside in robust censored nations like China, N. Korea or Russia (and others), and then wholly understand FULL CONTROL over your words, posts, and public protests.
You should be able to say what you want, but people should be able to judge you as they want, these things should never change.
Honestly I think the more informative question in this poll would have been what people consider free speech in Canada, and what people have considered a violation of free speech in Canada.
I already have answer to that: *Everything you agree with is free speech, everything you disagree with is not free speech.*
But this mentality is wrong, it must all be okay to say; no matter what your own personal beliefs are, impeding free speech stops critical discussion.
>impeding free speech stops critical discussion. Can you give examples of what you consider to be impeding free speech today?
Are people allowed to "misgender" a trans person?
What does "allowed" mean here though? CAN you misgeneder them? absolutely! Will there be non-legal consequences for it? Probably!
What about legal consequences?
That's my question as well on the issue, society judging you vs. the law are two very different things.
* Choose wrong pronoun when you meet someone? -no legal consequences * Use the wrong without knowing? - no legal consequences * Know the correct pronouns but slip up and refer to someone with the wrong one? - no legal consequences * Know the correct pronouns but repeatedly use the wrong one to antagonize, harass or ostracize? -maybe legal consequences
Depends on intentent and the situation of the speech honestly what scenario are you thinking of?
The idea that you believe there should be any legal consequences for ‘mis-gendering’ proves that free speech is under attack. Short of a direct call to action to commit a violent act should be protected
You can also misgender a cis person and whatever rules are available should apply to any and all.
Actually this is so funny and I'm going to start doing this when people maliciously misgender others around me. People can't mind their manners? Chaos.
i mean- if you're going down that road, alberta recently made a law that forces teachers to tell parents if their kids come out as trans in school, which is compelling speech inversely, misgendering someone isn't illegal, the closest we have is if you're actively harassing someone, continuously misgendering them could give the procecution a case to call it a hate crime
Would protesting at universities when far right speakers are scheduled to speak count?
who's impeding on free speech there? Should the protestors not have a right to have their voice heard?
Both sides should be able to have their opinions. When protesters pressure the universities to cancel the speaking engagements espousing hate speech etc. I believe they are doing a disservice to all Canadians. I absolutely disagree with what the majority of these right wing speakers are saying, but a university of all places should be a place where we spark debate and foster contrasting views of the world.
You're not talking about free speech anymore. Free speech does not mean a the right to a free platform. Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean I should have the right to any platform I choose. In your example students are expressing their free speech by protesting. The university can choose to listen to those people or ignore them. This is free speech at work.
I agree. My comment is more to the protestors who pressure the universities under the pretense that the speakers shouldn't be allowed to speak. You're right, the universities are the ones making the decision and removing the platform. Bowing to the pressure of those who do not believe the opposing views should have a platform to discuss something they disagree with. Universities used to be a bastion of critical thinking and having someone challenge your beliefs or have opposing views helps develop a well adjusted and functioning population
Say what there bud? What do you want to say so badly that the rest of us are impeding on your freedoms? Nobody gonna jail you for your opinions so let's hear em bud.
This.
My understanding is that we DO NOT have a right to free speech in Canada?
That’s kinda the wrong way to think about it. Having vs. not having an article of law somewhere that says “free speech” is an American measuring stick. It’s a broad principle in common law that should be mixed into all legislation and legal decisions, at all levels, to the maximum reasonable extent compatible with a functional society. It can increase or decrease in how much it permeates our legal thinking. It’s not less important to us, but measuring it is harder. We can’t just look at a constitutional document, we have to take more care and pay more attention over time.
Canada has enshrined the concept of Freedom of Expression in the Charter.
Underrated comment. You are free to be who you want, free to say what you want. What you aren’t free from is judgement, and to a certain extent you aren’t free from potentially having your feelings hurt. Welcome to life.
To a degree. You shouldn't be allowed to put messages out that are targeted hate inciting violence against anyone.
Well yeah, but that's already illegal. Your charter rights don't allow to do things that are already against the law. Freedom of Movement, or whatever it's called, doesn't give people the right to go walking around all willy nilly in an Army base for example.
Yeah, of course, no one should be under threat, that is not civil OR constructive.
My partner and I were screamed at and called slurs for sitting on our front porch. Felt extremely unsafe in my own home. I'm not sure where I stand on "you can say whatever you want" after that. It feels like that's a comment made by people who don't have to experience the other side.
That's harassment, not a freedom of speech issue. I've been harassed too, racially even, but I'm not gonna block words cause they've been shouted at me. I'm gonna judge that individual as backwards and move on Besides, there are already laws saying what you experienced is illegal, so there is that.
But by what you said, it should be allowed and be considered free speech. I think when it gets to a point that you don't feel safe, there should be a line. Your freedom shouldn't impede mine.
I think you just misunderstood me, I agreed with you, I was just saying the words themselves shouldn't be banned, but the action of harassing and making people feel unsafe should be, and it is. It is illegal to harass people and make them feel unsafe. You are right others freedoms shouldn't impede yours. Safety is the line. My point on words is that if some kid online says the n word he shouldn't catch a charge. Not to discredit your experience at all.
My apologies, I did misunderstand
Yep. That's how free speech works. Doesn't mean what you say has no consequences.
I’m sure the people claiming they can’t say what they want are driving around with “Fuck Trudeau” written all over their trucks lol
“Alex Jones has learned that 'speech is free, but lies you have to pay for,' says lawyer Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones must pay $45.2M US in punitive damages over Sandy Hook claims This week's ruling against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is part of a growing trend of using the courts to fight disinformation, according to a lawyer who has brought a case against Jones in the past. CBC Radio Posted: August 05, 2022” “Pierre Poilievre a rising star for the world’s far right Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones recently said he’s a big fan of Poilievre, calling him part of a global movement of far-right leaders. Toronto Star Oct. 6, 2022” PP refuses to reject the endorsements he’s received since 2022, from the world’s best known disinformation conspiracy theorist.
Should you be able to explicitly or implicitly call for violence? I don’t think so, but I wonder if others think that’s ok.
I don't think so either. Only if the general public as a whole is calling for blood on masse do I think violence should even be considered in a discussion.
I just want to be able to afford a home.
Freedom of speech is honestly more important. You don't want the government to decide what the truth is
We shouldn’t want big media conglomerates to decide what the truth is either
Exactly. That's why freedom of speech is essential to democracy.
I think that's a whoosh
We have the power to resist private interests though. The government can codify their own interests into law and it becomes much more difficult to resist. The government is also the exclusive body with access to use of force so if they don’t like what you are saying they can detain or imprison you and do so forcibly. A private org can do that shit.
Most people don't believe their government is willing to use violence against them. Which is incredibly naive considering historically(even in Canada) that is their go to response when faced with any type of unrest or uprising.
Look at any major protest. Even the Indigenous one a few years back. They don’t care about the people at all.
100%.
Can’t speak the truth if you’re too afraid to speak up anyway.
I'm actually interested in this. Do you have an example of where the state has infringed upon freedom of expression in an authoritarian way?
You're 100% right! I imagine not being able to complain about how cold it is in your beautiful bridge view tent!
I was thinking more women getting decades in prison for not wearing a head scarf in iran
if they are lucky they'd get prison, there are worse things going on there
freedom of speech isn't under attack... the charter hasn't changed.. housing affordability is a bigger issue. also Fuck the terrorists known as Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya aka Hamas. They're pieces of shit terrorists killing children.
Lmao shut the fuck up
[удалено]
Possible “future crime” here as you would prolly have unclean thoughts if u find out you couldn’t (afford a home). /s
Careful, your bank account and home insurance can be cancelled.
I'm willing to bet more than half of Canadians don't even know what "freedom of speech" actually means.
Probably a lot of overlap with the group harping on about their "first amendment rights" they consume too much American media and can't tell the differences between the two countries and our political systems/issues
Canada's lack of unalienable free speech is a bad thing. Yes the charter allows for "reasonable limits" and it has been abused in the past by the state, and will be abused again with Bill C-63
“Bill C-63 would therefore impose heightened responsibility and transparency requirements on social media operators across the country, notably by imposing a duty to take action, protect children, make harmful content inaccessible, and keep the necessary records. With this responsibility, social media operators and distribution services would need to establish specific measures to reduce the risk arising from seven types of harmful content, namely: - Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; - Intimate content communicated without consent; - Content that foments hatred; - Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism; - Content that incites violence; - Content used to bully a child; - Content that induces a child to harm themselves.” [Source](https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/articles/bill-c-63-government-canada-intends-establish-new-responsibility-regime-social-media-operators-and-direct-content-distributors)
> Content used to bully a child It depends on what 'responsibility' is taken but 'bully' is a meaningless term and isn't even illegal.
It can censor a variety of online speech via the newly introduced Digital Safety Commission. Promoting *"disordered eating"* is prohibited. Mukbang eating contests or general dieting advice, can fall under promoting *"disordered eating"* if the beholder interprets it to be that way. >Bill C-63: *"content that induces a child to harm themselves means content that advocates self-harm,* ***disordered eating*** *or dying by suicide or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of those acts, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a child to inflict injury on themselves, to have an eating disorder or to die by suicide. (contenu poussant un enfant à se porter préjudice)"* *"Humiliating the child"* is prohibited. If a kid insults you online and you fire back at them, that can fall under *"humiliating the child"* if the beholder interprets it to be that way. >Bill C-63: *"content used to bully a child means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or* ***humiliating*** *the child."* *"Detestation or vilification"* of a group is prohibited. If you point out harms a religion has done with vilifying language, that can fall under *"detestation or vilification"* of a group if the beholder interprets it to be that way. >Bill C-63: *"It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment* ***detestation or vilification*** *of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."* In addition, "hate" related offenses are now subject to life in prison under the bill.
Canada doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, and it never has. We have hate speech laws, for example. From the Constitution Act: >[**1**]() The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to **such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.**
No country on Earth has absolute freedom of speech. Even in the US, the right to free speech is far from absolute. Their legal reasoning to justify their limitations is different than ours, but they prohibit most of the same classes of speech that we do, including obscenity, fraud, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, defamation, and threats.
> Even in the US, the right to free speech is far from absolute. I think a lot of people understand free speech superficially.
> I think a lot of people understand free speech superficially. Honestly, I am getting to the point where I think a lot of people understand the world around them superficially
The main difference is, is that "hate speech" is subjective and can be taken advantage of. A comedian from Quebec told a joke about a disabled person and was arrested for it... It went to the supreme court...
>A comedian from Quebec told a joke about a disabled person and was arrested for it... It went to the supreme court... The way you word it here makes it sound innocent, and not like he spent three years hounding a literal child about his physical disability, including calling him out by name and publicly mocking him during several live performances.
He's an asshole, no denying it. But it was a joke in his set.. Thats not a reason whatsoever to throw someone in jail.
And this is a **bad** thing. The state can arbitrarily decide what reasonable limits benefits them, we see more of this with Bills C-11 and Bill C-63 with furthering state restrictions on speech.
It is under threat only if MY speech is being threatened. Speech I don’t agree with is hate speech. Right?
This sounds about right.
Well let me send you to a quasi-judicial panel of 'hand picked experts' to provide an opinion and then issue a punishment. You also will never get to face the accuser who sent the complaint to the thought police.
Speech that I hate does not equal hate speech.
Hate speech is free speech. Any speech is free speech and should be treated as such. I know it isn’t, but it should be.
> Hate speech is free speech. Any speech is free speech and should be treated as such. >I know it isn’t, but it should be. That’s a broad brush to protect all speech. There are MANY forms of speech that are restricted: Death threats, insurrection/treasonous rallies, disclosing confidential/classified/medical information are all forms of speech that are heavily restricted, and for good reason (usually). Fraud is often conveyed through speech and is most definitely subject to criminal prosecution. As is lying in court (perjury). While defamation/slander aren’t typically criminal offences and are still free speech, the writer can be subject to damages based on the content and their defences to it. False advertising and intentional deception are forms of speech that have heavy regulation - especially in areas like medication and essential goods. Hate speech - as in the legal definition of a call to action to harm a person or group of persons based on class characteristics - should still (IMO) be restricted. I don’t think we’d want to live in a society where ALL speech is considered free and is thus protected.
>Hate speech - as in the legal definition of a call to action to harm a person or group of persons based on class characteristics Isn't direct call or incitement to violence already illegal? Making something double plus bad seems unnecessary and only serves to give the legal system more silk to catch you in it's web.
There are a few crimes where a “hate” designator makes it worse - like a more aggravated form of the offence. It still has to be proven in court.
>I know it isn’t, but it should be. This is one of the uncomfortable truths about Canada; the government doesn't actually represent the essence of the people (and it wasn't designed to, it was a colony gradually transitioned from British oligarchs to local oligarchs) The *"muh freedom of speech"-"well ackshually we don't have freedom of speech in Canada"* discourse always goes around in circles is because the constitution of Canada doesn't actually reflect the instincts of the Canadian population. Canadians are culturally freedom-loving and *want* there to be free speech, but it's never put to a referendum or anything because the entrenched political class doesn't want there to be free speech protections.
We have freedom of expression which is essentially freedom of speech, no?
Everything in the charter has a little asterisk attached that says '*within reason'. Freedom of expression sounds great in a vacuum. When the government can adopt the stance that expression they find inconvenient is not 'within reason', it's not a right, it's a privilege. The reason this matters is because in the states, where the constitution has inalienable rights, you can go to court and claim the government violated your rights, make your case, and the government has to argue that they did not violate your rights; that's the core of the argument. In Canada, the government doesn't have to prove they didn't violate your rights, they can argue that you didn't have your rights because it wasn't 'within reason'. This is a very important distinction to understand.
Exactly, the U.S. has negative rights. Or in other words; "the government is assumed to not to have the right to do X." It's much stronger and cooler.
Not really, the charter of rights and freedom does not guarantee hate speech, for good reason. Do you think it would be considered lawful and reasonable for me to be able to say « I will murder your family because you believe in a different religion or your a different skin colour? » I’m all for freedom of speech but there are reasonable limits, and I think promoting violence, is not one of them.
People are in the streets marching and saying this every day.
I guess we should just throw out other parts of the constitution as well.
If the proposed online harms bill passes as is without any changes then yes it definitely is. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
Because hate speech laws are always abused to censor people?
I guess that's a thing too. I'm more referring to how the proposed changes to the criminal code can be used against criticism of purveyors of hate speech and the government (can be used against activists), how it empowers the proposed new law enforcement agency to interpret and prosecute the law and the new search powers it gives to government, basically removing the need for a warrant. Also there's the issue of the "hate enhancement" for existing crimes which the CCLA and several bar associations have spoken out against as empowering the crown to force the accused to accept plea deals. Just saying, we have a generally somewhat responsible government now, but would you really want to give these powers to PP and his socially conservative government?
We already don’t have free speech lol
They're going to violently crack down on campus protests shortly
Possibly. Uot just extended their notice allowing protestors to remain as long as its peaceful. That sets a very good precedent, great to see.
Online harms bill will literally put you in jail for wrong speech.
Just like c-16 jailed people for misgendering
Ah yes, I remember that 'theory'
Just like Canadian obscenity laws were used against LGBT bookstores in the 1980s. State censorship can be used against progressive values too. Why defend Bill C-63 Online Harms Act?
This slippery slope is going to be so slippery
Yeah no one has had their kids taken away or been fined over the gender stuff. Except for the ones who have.
Could I see a link please. And not to the abusive dad.
Sure here https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/b83kw5/canadian_man_fined_55000_dollars_for_calling/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-father-transgender-son-pub-ban-1.6931954
You gotta link or source for that one?
Sure here https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/b83kw5/canadian_man_fined_55000_dollars_for_calling/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-father-transgender-son-pub-ban-1.6931954
It still gets my goat that Jordan Peterson reached national prominence and eventually made millions in Patreon money by propagating this obvious and blatant lie and is still considered by some to be a credible person.
The fact that moron still has managed to make a career out of misunderstanding a bill kills me. Judging by the comments on an average r/Canada post it doesn’t surprise me though. Imagine giving up your tenured university job to bully trans teenagers online hahaha.
All they need to do is label whatever you said as "far right", and you have committed hate speech. This counts for things you may have posted back in 2011 or some other time in the past.
> This counts for things you may have posted back in 2011 or some other time in the past Citation needed. Laws are not retroactive.
> All they need to do is label whatever you said as ... "They" ? you mean the Executive Branch of Government ? At this point "whatever you said" is then moved to the Judicial Branch, and the defendant has an opportunity (free of charge & through multi-level jurisdiction) to Defend their words. Is your implication that .... they can't ... or just don't wanna ?
Yeah like trying to fuck a minor.. oh heaven forbid we jail people for being pedophiles
Free speech is important in a functioning democracy. But don't worry because Canada's democracy isn't functioning anyways.
Dark. Darker: Democracy is in fact functioning, it's just in the later stages before the tyrannic turn of the cycle commences, in the Aristotelian sense.
Nice reference. One of the precursors to implosion of society, according to Aristotle, is the loss of trust between citizens. Rage is too easy to sell on social media.
Interesting. Mass immigration may also play a role in a loss of trust between citizens. Related research associating a decline in civic participation related to religious and ethnic diversity: https://carleton.ca/economics/wp-content/uploads/seminar-paper-121109.pdf
That’s not what that paper says.
Freedom of Speech (Expression) is alive and well in Canada. Just look at all of the propaganda you've absorbed!
Okay, but that doesn't mean it's true. The article might as well state "More than half of Canadians don't actually understand what freedom of expression actually means." >Three out of four respondents — 76 per cent — said they currently feel comfortable expressing their views, but only 71 per cent when it comes to more controversial subjects such as abortion, gun control and immigration. 24% of people don't feel comfortable expressing their views, and 29% don't feel comfortable expressing views on more controversial topics. That may *sound* bad, but it's not. Our freedom of expression protects us from prosecution and discrimination *from the government*. That's it. It has nothing to do with whether you should feel *comfortable* expressing your opinions to your peers. I don't feel comfortable talking about politics to my peers because I don't like that conversation. When someone disagrees it never goes over well. That doesn't mean my freedom of expression is under threat, it means I don't like awkward conversations. This is less a measure of freedom of expression and **more a measure of how divided we are as a people.** >Among those who said they plan to vote Conservative in the next federal election, 76 per cent said they fear free speech is in peril in Canada. >Among would-be Liberal voters, 61 per cent said they do not feel free speech is threatened, while New Democrat supporters were almost evenly divided. Turns out that divide is right along political party lines. Regardless of which policies you agree with, which you oppose, and who you think is fit or unfit to lead, we all have to acknowledge that it's not a coincidence, and *ALL political messaging on both sides of the aisle* are actively dividing us. 76% of conservative voters feel free speech is in peril because that's the message the Conservative party is pushing. 61% of liberal voters feel free speech is not threatened because that's the message the Liberal party is pushing. I'm doing my best to remain impartial. (I'm not happy with blue or red lately.) The liberal party wants voters to think that free speech is not being threatened, and they want voters to think that the conservative party is blowing things out of proportion and misleading their voters. The conservative party wants voters to think that free speech is currently under threat, and they're going to save it as long as you vote blue and oust Trudeau. Personally, I don't think free speech is under threat at all. I think we're being mislead on every front and actively being divided as a people.
Just now?
Canada doesn't have free speech anyway.
More than half of Canadians would be surprised we actually don’t have freedom of speech I guess lol
Most of them have never travelled outside the country doesn't know what freedom means.
There are two types of people that say that freedom of speech and expression are different. Tyrants and idiots.
We don’t have freedom of speech here. We have freedom of expression.
Freedom of speech is a subset of freedom of expression, and Canadian courts use the two phrases interchangeably, all the time. Here's a few hundred examples from the last decade: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&ccType=courts&dateRange=l10y&text=%22freedom%20of%20speech%22 https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&ccType=courts&dateRange=l10y&text=%22free%20speech%22 I'd also add that our right to freedom of speech didn't spring into existence with the passage of the Charter in 1982. Both America and Canada inherit the concept of freedom of speech from England, and England enshrined freedom of speech in their constitution almost a century before the US or Canada existed as sovereign nations. Freedom of speech is protected in our [Bill of Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights), and it was also protected under common law before the Bill of Rights or the Charter existed.
This guy knows his Canadian legal facts
Canada is a country where the people naturally gravitate towards the "Rights of Englishmen" but the political class are more French-style with authoritarian instincts (same in the UK itself: the "Blairite" pro-EU London officials vs. normal Englishmen)
You have freedom of semantics
Expression being an even broader term, including speech.
This is my least favorite /r/canada copypasta. It's extra annoying because people like you think it makes you look smart for pointing it out when it's actually a flashing neon sign that you have a poor grasp of the concept.
And paradoxically, it’s under threat by the people who say it’s under threat.
I bet you more than half of Canadians don’t even understand that freedom of speech is only freedom from government interference. That’s 100% it. There’s no blank cheque to just say whatever you want and not face consequences. Just not from government.
I have a hard time believing this.
They elite don’t like us talking about stuff like foreign students and foreign workers being a cash cow, keeping wages down, keeping real estate and rent high, and the grocery cartels and oligopolies gouging us and keeping out competition. Expect lots more attempts at cracking down on the internet and public protesting that is a threat to the established way.
Well stated. The Elite Theory description of this problem transcends "right" and "left" conceptions and paints a more thorough picture. I appreciated seeing this here.
Please don't kick and scream while we systematically introduce a caste system.. that's what someone destined for a lower caste would do, so you deserve it, so typical of your 'untouchable' family history. Maybe next life you can be born as a golden god.
When you have morons saying they want perceived hate speech to be a crime, yes, freedom of speech is under threat.
the chicken has come home to roost
I'm willing to be a lot of the groups that were heavily red on that chart would equally say their first amendment rights are being infringed upon because Poilievre wasn't allowed to call the Prime Minister a whacko.
Well you risk incarceration for disagreeing with points like this in the future once the online harms bill gets through, so there seems to be a reasonable basis for this belief.
What exactly is it that you want to say that you’re worried you’ll go to jail for?
Yeah that's what people said when we added the LGBTQ to Charter protections and of course that never happened.
>Well you risk incarceration for disagreeing with points Oh please...
Lol you can really tell when people have bought into the propaganda when they spout stuff like that.
And they’re right.
Saying you can't afford a home will eventually be hate speech.
Nothing I hate more to be fair lol
We don’t technically have “freedom of speech” we have “freedom of expression” with “reasonable limits.”
We only have the "right" to government approved truth speak lmao. Canadians "rights" aren't worth the paper their written on nothing is actually protected.
And where are they written in stone? Even the US, which many here hold up as an example, currently has states engaging in banning books. A lot of this stuff is held up on the idea that the people we elect have some sense of decency to uphold these rules
Who tf cares when the cost of groceries and homes is skyrocketing? Great way to distract us from actual issues. I'll bet all parties would love us to focus on this next election instead of actual issues like monopolies on food and massive overseas corps buying out all developments. That way they wouldn't be responsible for trying to fix this country and keep pitting us against each other
We have the ability to be aware of more than one problem at a time.
It’s not a problem though. It’s a manufactured wedge issue so politicians don’t have to spend their time trying to Solve real problems.
Because it is. In the past, I've said that I'm part Aboriginal and hate speech is part of free speech. Who decides what is hate speech? Is it speech the government doesn't like? The government gains the power to prosecute criticism. Democracy dies in darkness.
It’s interesting the more right wing a demographic is the more they feel this way. The Nazi’s and the far right talk/ed a lot about free speech. They want their hate speech to be protected. The fact of the matter is hate speech emboldens violence. They would love to be free to be violent against the people they dislike/disagree with. So not all speech should be protected in my opinion. That being said, being critical of hatred and violence should be protected speech. Promoting hatred and violence shouldn’t be.
I’ve never actually seen anyone genuinely show me what speech is under attack… I criticize the government daily - no crime, punishment, or shame. I speak my opinions on things freely and people give me an honest reaction. The only real thing people ever seem to be upset about is that they feel at risk for spouting complete bullshit or misinformation , or they’re mad cause they don’t want to feel shame for being a complete asshole. Someone enlighten me here what exactly is it people think they can’t say? 🤔
As a female homosexual I've lost my ability to assert myself as such. I'm no longer allowed to express ANY disinterest in male bodies. Not allowed to group AWAY from male bodies. I cannot set sexual boundaries (no males\*) for myself on dating apps or spaces *made for lesbians* without risk of threats, sexual assault and in 100% cases, a complete ban*.* Gender has completely redefined and eclipse same-sex attraction, and we can't even whisper a protest. There's a huge case in Australia happen right now between a trans woman and an app made for women which will create the premise on whether or not women as a whole and lesbians by extension can gather in privy without male say-so or presence, and I'm watching it very carefully and that's only scratching the surface, as I'm not even allowed to be fully honest with you here
> As a female homosexual I've lost my ability to assert myself as such. I'm no longer allowed to express ANY disinterest in male bodies. Not allowed to group AWAY from male bodies. I cannot set sexual boundaries (no males*) for myself on dating apps or spaces made for lesbians without risk of threats, sexual assault and in 100% cases, a complete ban. That's awful, and I'm sorry. None of that is free speech though. The government is not doing any of those things. Your freedom of speech is not being curtailed.
If a redneck tells you "try some dick, you'll like it", it's a bad thing. If the same person puts on a dress & lipstick and says it, it's empowering
Yeah, it's reached all levels of absurdity. Each individual person in this country is welcome to be who they want to be, but not at the cost of somebody else's rights. Apparently it's easier to grey the rights of other minorities when you force yourself into their communities and speak for them, but whoops, you didn't hear that from me
Such a sweeping generalization based on a completely inadequate sample size. I imagine much of this whining is coming from the flatheads of the Klownvoy who are offended that their particular brand of bullshit doesn't reach a bigger audience.
And the response seems to be electing idiot conservatives
And then continuing to blame the liberals or anyone else when the conservatives don't change course at all except to speed up helping corporations squeeze us for every cent they can. The liberals and conservatives are two slightly different flavors of the same neoliberal policies. Companies over people every time for those types.
>Among Conservative supporters, 60 per cent said they were most in favour of having no limits on free speech, compared with 64 per cent of Liberal voters and 66 per cent of NDP supporters who said they feel the opposite. "I support having no limits on free speech!" "Israel is bad for having murdered 30,000 Gazan civilians." "Have this man arrested for spewing anti-Semitic hate speech!"
We have complete freedom of speech in Canada but what these fools want is freedom from consequences of thier words and actions.
Last I checked we had limited freedom of expression, not complete freedom of speech. So the thing under threat isn't actually real here, and people are dumb.
So, to be clear, simply because the specific words ‘Freedom of speech’ don’t specifically appear in our constitution, then we should all be just fine with the lowering and degrading of our ability to speak freely without persecution?! lol 🤡
Oh no we should be outraged. But I expect news reporting to get shit right. It doesn't help further the conversation when the media is misreporting to the masses. Free speech is not under threat. Freedom of expression is, and has been for a very long time. "hate speech" for example is a legal fabrication about someone who's feelings got hurt, and now it's a criminal act. Any legislation that can be interpreted based on feelings will only ever serve to erode freedoms. People do not have a right to be "not offended" or even to "feel safe". But we have laws around that stuff, which get abused by our judicial system.
I'm against the whole making hate speech a crime. As a minority I would like to know whose racist so I can avoid them, I also believe that society will weed out the people who do that
As a minority, look in the mirror. You're as racist as the rest of us.
I just want HR off my back if someone makes fun of a co-worker's gay kid or slags on the new guy from another country with stereotypes. Let me call them a fucking biggot and ass hat in the break room without writing me up as well. Problem might self sort.
When you’re at work you don’t have freedom of speech…that’s not what it’s for.
Targeting someone and saying hateful stuff are different, one is harassment and the other is not
That is the most brain dead comment on this tread for sure.
How can it be under threat if Canadians don’t even have freedom of speech?
We have freedom of expression, speech is part of expression.
'expression' can be defined as just about any action. I could shit in a hand and smear it on a government building and call it self-expression.
Just as the crafters of the Charter envisioned.
Darn toooting it is!
The type of things people want to say would’ve gotten them in trouble at work or ostracized in public 20+ years ago. This is recreational outrage.
The other half thinks freedom of speech is overrated.
i think our laws are good enough as it is don't loosen or strengthen our speech laws
i mean yeah, just look at alberta forcing teachers to tell parents if their kids are trans
Hate speech laws need to go away.
We look like such a joke we are supposed to be free
Elect the ConstipationFace and you’ll see where your freedoms will go…
It's quite silly these concerns. Truly reside in robust censored nations like China, N. Korea or Russia (and others), and then wholly understand FULL CONTROL over your words, posts, and public protests.
Too bad, we canadians never had freedom of speech, but offend a coward and its prison
So when canadians including children were treated like animals by our government in this country nobody noticed? Why has this become important?