The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.
While I generally agree with you, it is interesting to note that the notwithstanding clause was specifically used to target free speech. And not just a little bit of speech, but any English on signage in Quebec (which, if I recall, must be written more prominently in French than in English).
It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!
> Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing
See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.
I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?
If I claim that red is my favorite color, but I actually prefer orange, does that I mean I get to call orange "red"?
The fact that restricting the verbal equivalent of "swinging fists into others' faces" may be a good thing doesn't mean that can be redefined as free speech, because everyone has their own idea of what these reasonable restrictions are. Free speech is free speech, even if it's in practice a bad idea.
> Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes.
A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.
You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.
Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an action you could be arrested for rather than an idea?
For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?
How about threatening violence against a member of a protected class? Is the crime worse because of that persons protected status, even if that didn’t matter to the perpetrator?
For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.
Free Speech that is restricted is no longer Free, so how can it not be binary? Either you're free to say things - including politically repugnant things - or you are not free to do so.
Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.
Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.
Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.
> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.
Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.
Just to point out, the long dominance of the restrictive “Clear and Present Danger” rule in US free speech analysis was ended in favor of the “inciting imminent lawless conduct” rule (which makes mere theoretically dangerous speech still protected) in case in which KKK leader was challenging a conviction for televised advocacy of “revengeance”.
I don't think most people that are happy about the rule would find the particular actor or action sympathetic; you fight for free speech not because the actor is popular or sympathetic, but because you might need it when you and your actions are not popular or sympathetic.
See, whats funny to me about this, is that you've gone and given yourself the title of "Americans", whereas the people who were there before you, and had established civilizations, are given the title "Native Americans". That doesn't make any sense. How about instead, Native Americans can drop the Native qualifier and Americans can start calling themselves "Foreign Americans". That's much more logical, and historically consistent.
(Also, "independent, foreign-recognized nation in the Americas"? What about the Six Nations? They were certainly recognized as nations by the British)
