Nova Scotia shooter dead after killing 22 people/CDN Govt "assault style" weapons ban.

[Kanukfanatic]

21 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

If you want less gun control.... why not emigrate to the states.. You can apply to free carry a gun.  Could join a militia.....

Must be heaven .. right ?

Luckily Canada has free speech. If you don't like what he typed, why don't you move?

[inane]

42 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Are there a lot of vehicles in AB that have stuff written all over them?

You seem to post a few. Reminds me of some of the rallies down south.

 

 

A lot of impotent rage. 

 

Imagine thinking there's something in your truck worth murdering someone over. 

[Junkyard Dog]

8 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Luckily Canada has free speech. If you don't like what he typed, why don't you move?

You could get charge for saying something offensive or mis-pronouning I believe.

[You Mad Bro?]

3 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

You could get charge for saying something offensive or mis-pronouning I believe.

Yea you can. I appreciate the support but yea we don’t have free speech in Canada. Sad. 

[Ryan Strome]

13 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

You could get charge for saying something offensive or mis-pronouning I believe.

 

9 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

Yea you can. I appreciate the support but yea we don’t have free speech in Canada. Sad. 

You have free speech but you don't have the right of hate speech. 

[You Mad Bro?]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

You have free speech but you don't have the right of hate speech. 

I’d probably wanna smack someone for using hate speech, but jailing someone for hateful language is not free speech. 

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, You Mad Bro? said:

I’d probably wanna smack someone for using hate speech, but jailing someone for hateful language is not free speech. 

Well I doubt you would ever be jailed, let's be honest hate speech happens daily without repercussions. 

 

I can understand your POV but I don't know if free speech needs to include hate speech. You are free to say whatever you like but why should that include racially attacking people? 

 

Sure it may be an infringement but without it you end up like the US where everyone hates one another.

[You Mad Bro?]

20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Well I doubt you would ever be jailed, let's be honest hate speech happens daily without repercussions. 

 

I can understand your POV but I don't know if free speech needs to include hate speech. You are free to say whatever you like but why should that include racially attacking people? 

 

Sure it may be an infringement but without it you end up like the US where everyone hates one another.

I agree with what you’re saying. And for the most part I usually accept the term free speech in Canada. In my opinion however, laws restricting what you can say would infringe upon that. And yes America is more divided now than it has been in decades. It’s nuts. I see that creeping up north too tho. 

[Junkyard Dog]

38 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Well I doubt you would ever be jailed, let's be honest hate speech happens daily without repercussions. 

 

I can understand your POV but I don't know if free speech needs to include hate speech. You are free to say whatever you like but why should that include racially attacking people? 

 

Sure it may be an infringement but without it you end up like the US where everyone hates one another.

The problem is who defines hate speech? Anyone can be offended and the subjectivity of this type of infringement is what I disagree with.

 

I believe in society growing and maturing over time as we have for decades and centuries. We've made an immense amount of strides without the need of restricting any sort of free speech in this sort of way.

 

IMO anyone should be able to say anything as long as it doesn't incite violence which the laws already prohibit. We live in a society today where any sort of bad exposure can destroy your reputation AKA cancel culture.

 

That's my take on it at least.

 

We finally disagree on something RS. Never thought it would happen haha.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[Ryan Strome]

12 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

The problem is who defines hate speech? Anyone can be offended and the subjectivity of this type of infringement is what I disagree with.

 

I believe in society growing and maturing over time as we have for decades and centuries. We've made an immense amount of strides without the need of restricting any sort of free speech in this sort of way.

 

IMO anyone should be able to say anything as long as it doesn't incite violence which the laws already prohibit. We live in a society today where any sort of bad exposure can destroy your reputation AKA cancel culture.

 

That's my take on it at least.

 

We finally disagree on something RS. Never thought it would happen haha.

You can say anything. Hate speech pretty much means racially attacking someone or attacking people for their sexual preference.

 

Hate speech laws don't stop you from telling someone off or swearing at them.

 

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code and in some other federal legislation. There are also statutory provisions relating to hate publications in some, but not all, of the provinces and territories.

Even though it fails to define what hate speech is, the Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

In some provinces and territories, human rights legislation creates civil sanctions for hate publications. Those claims are resolved through administrative tribunals or the civil courts, and can involve civil remedies such as damages or injunctive relief. In some provinces, there are also statutory restrictions on accessing public funds in relation to hate propaganda.

The federal human rights legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, formerly included a civil sanction for transmitting hate messages by means of telecommunications facilities under federal jurisdiction. That provision was repealed by a federal statute which was passed in 2013 and came into force in 2014.

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

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

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You can say anything. Hate speech pretty much means racially attacking someone or attacking people for their sexual preference.

 

Hate speech laws don't stop you from telling someone off or swearing at them.

 

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code and in some other federal legislation. There are also statutory provisions relating to hate publications in some, but not all, of the provinces and territories.

Even though it fails to define what hate speech is, the Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

In some provinces and territories, human rights legislation creates civil sanctions for hate publications. Those claims are resolved through administrative tribunals or the civil courts, and can involve civil remedies such as damages or injunctive relief. In some provinces, there are also statutory restrictions on accessing public funds in relation to hate propaganda.

The federal human rights legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, formerly included a civil sanction for transmitting hate messages by means of telecommunications facilities under federal jurisdiction. That provision was repealed by a federal statute which was passed in 2013 and came into force in 2014.

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

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

Still how is that defined? Who gets to decide what hate speech is in the end? Especially in correlation to mis-gendering when there are no set amount of gender pronouns and based off of the subjectivity of person to person?

 

The point I am making is the subjectivity of it and how subjectivity isn't a good way to make laws.

 

I've watched a lot of debates in regard to gender/trans that people would describe as hate speech online when they're just having open dialogue.

 

The BC supreme court even ruled that mis-gendering a child can constitute as child abuse.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[Ryan Strome]

13 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Still how is that defined? Who gets to decide what hate speech is? Especially in correlation to mis-gendering when there are no set amount of gender pronouns and based off of the subjectivity of person to person?

 

I've watched a lot of debates in regard to gender/trans that people would describe as hate speech online when they're just having open dialogue.

 

The BC supreme court even ruled that mis-gendering a child can constitute as child abuse.

Well you are right there is no clear definition and essentially I suppose a judge or a crown prosecutor would decide if a crime has been committed. I can certainly see your concern but honestly imo it's rarely applied, but again I understand the lack of definition isn't right/fair.

 

Imo make clear what constitutes hate speech.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Ryan Strome

[Lionized27]

11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

 

Not exactly true...there's, like, one of those lowers in Canada.

Good thing it's now prohib.

Great marketing though!

"Uncle Blackface bans black coffee! Say it ain't so!"

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Well you are right there is no clear definition and essentially I suppose a judge or a crown prosecutor would decide if a crime has been committed. I can certainly see your concern but honestly imo it's rarely applied, but again I understand the lack of definition isn't right/fair.

 

Imo make clear what constitutes hate speech and keep the law in place.

IMO definitions are super important when it comes to law. When definitions are subject to change on a case to case basis I have an issue.

 

By no means do I support what anti-trans/gay/etc people say but I believe in society today bad exposure destroys people, especially any sort of publication/business/etc.

 

An example being if you're a pastor that won't wed gay/trans people for reasons that are awful your business will suffer in a lot of various ways. You're for one missing out on a lot of clients and secondly people aren't gonna be attracted to you when there is a pastor who's more open and accepting. It takes one person to say something publicly in regards to your lack of acceptance and you're done like dinner. That's how I can see cancel culture being used for good.

 

That's just a hypothetical though.

 

That's how I have faith in western society when it comes to this sort of thing. We've become more and more accepting, I see no need for laws in place to enforce this sort of change when we're in a constant state of change for the better socially.

 

Anyways we shouldn't get too off-topic but that's how I stand on it.

[Kanukfanatic]

Gonna buy a few more semi auto rifles this weekend. They are the same as the 1500 banned but are non restricted right now. And if people buy them now there is no list for JT and his bunch to take them.

 

May 1st was a sad day for Canada and rights...but oh well....Justin will be Justout soon enough lol

[Sharpshooter]

5 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Luckily Canada has free speech. If you don't like what he typed, why don't you move?

Free speech is not absolute in Canada. If you don’t know more about Canada’s Rights & Freedoms, then perhaps I suggest you educate yourself on them or  take your own advice regarding relocation. 

[Sharpshooter]

4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Well I doubt you would ever be jailed, let's be honest hate speech happens daily without repercussions. 

 

I can understand your POV but I don't know if free speech needs to include hate speech. You are free to say whatever you like but why should that include racially attacking people? 

 

Sure it may be an infringement but without it you end up like the US where everyone hates one another.

You are incorrect. 

[Kanukfanatic]

4 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Free speech is not absolute in Canada. If you don’t know more about Canada’s Rights & Freedoms, then perhaps I suggest you educate yourself on them or  take your own advice regarding relocation. 

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Sharpshooter]

5 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

You could get charge for saying something offensive or mis-pronouning I believe.

Never heard of someone charged for incorrectly using pro-nouns.