Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's marvelous that you read what I wrote and your comeback is "wait, I have three rankings with the same problem, so now it's solved!!" Is that a Canadian thing? Or just a liberal thing, since you don't even like what your own rankings say about Obama?
Oh for...
Is that an American thing to completely dismiss three distinctly different freedom rankings done by any number of independent orgs. because you find the measures too subjective for your liking?
Try reading your oxymoronically named Freedom Act for an illustrative example of how your rights are abrogated including that of 'speech'. Maybe you'll accept that one; it is yours and yours alone after all.
Responding to the last; is that also an American thing to refine everything down to liberal verus conservative, in two sides of the same playground nonsense? Never mind, the world already knows the answer to that one.
Is that an American thing to completely dismiss three distinctly different freedom rankings done by any number of independent orgs. because you find the measures too subjective for your liking?
No, it's an American thing to actually try to comprehend what rankings mean and how they were derived. I don't expect a Canadian to get that.
No, it's an American thing to actually try to comprehend what rankings mean and how they were derived. I don't expect a Canadian to get that.
The meaning of the rankings are self explanatory, the derivation of them is what you've objected to and Canadians have no problem understanding the concept of impartiality, whereas.....
The meaning of the rankings are self explanatory, the derivation of them is what you've objected to and Canadians have no problem understanding the concept of impartiality, whereas.....
So, basically, Canadians just go "I'm sure these rankings are being made by nice people" and put no further thought into them.
So, basically, Canadians just go "I'm sure these rankings are being made by nice people" and put no further thought into them.
Of course not, but neither do we simply state America has no freedom of speech because two teens get thrown into jail for sarcastic posts on gamer sites.
In consideration of this one issue; I personally disagree with the committee of arbitration of the Province of Quebec and I'm fairly sure that Canada's supreme court would strike their decision down very quickly if it cannot be proven under appeal that the comedian intended to incite hatred or violence towards an identifiable minority.
All those Americans piling on with comments about Canada lacking freedom of speech need to reassess exactly how much freedom of speech actually exists in the U.S. as ascertained by the SCOTUS itself.
For example it is against the law for you to protest on the steps of the supreme court carrying a sign because the justices decided they did not want that and because of the separation of powers (a good thing by the by) they are not bound by the legislative branch to moderate their position in consideration of transparency.https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8e4_story.html
In Florida an 86-year-old grandmother was handcuffed and jailed for mouthing off to an over-zealous airport baggage inspector, "What do you think I have in there, a bomb?" That was not a recent case: it happened in 1988. Airport speech censorship has always been totalitarian, but far more obvious since 9/11.
How many MLB games have you watched where the umpire ejects a coach or manager for yelling in his face. How many fathers have been ejected from little league games for language the ump objected to? How about the inductee that tells his drill sergeant to take a flying ****, any bets on where his freedom of speech got him?
There are reasonable limits and there are egregious limits; they exist in both countries. Were we to pile on every time we read of one of these occurrences in the U.S. in derision of freedom of speech being non-existent what do you think would be the response?
Of course not, but neither do we simply state America has no freedom of speech because two teens get thrown into jail for sarcastic posts on gamer sites.
The difference isn't "America versus Canada," but "conservative versus liberal." In other words, the people opposed to the Human Rights Tribunal aren't opposed to it because it's in Canada, nor are they pro-American governments acting like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. That should be obvious. So the only real question is which viewpoint dominates each country, in general. In Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal is an actual institution. It's not just a law, but an actual panel that enforces the underlying principle of suppressing speech. In America, there's no such institutionalized movement (yet). In addition, I looked up what you were referring to and it was a typical government over-reaction soon after a school shooting. Canada's move wasn't in reaction to anything, it was just "a random Tuesday."
We get it, you hate Americans.
BTW, how many New Zealand soldiers are buried in Normandy? I thought so.
No hate here, but I have got the impression from some Americans I've known over the years, that they have a unique understanding of freedom..... I'm getting that same impression now
NZ had little involvement in Normandy, but did in other campaigns. Death rate as a percentage of the population was nearly 2.5 times that of the US -not that it really matters -all those who served get my respect, regardless of country.
I guess they don't have a freedom of speech there. Glad I live in America.
They don't have freedom of speech the way we do is a better way to put it. Both Americans and Canadians can criticize their government and speak openly about most things. Here in the USA however you are allowed to say insulting, racists unpopular things as long as you do not threaten some one elses rights. (Violence is the best example) Much of the rest of the advanced world has hate crime laws or restrictions on speech which protects certain groups from speech aimed against them. Minorities, homosexuals and obviously in this case the handicapped are protected groups. These nations citizens seem to want these laws, and it is their right to have them. However the difference between the American model of free speech and the Canadian and European models of free speech are often subject of irritation between Americans and those in these other advanced nations. Americans tend to see hate speech laws as an infringement on freedom, while they see us Americans as insensitive and too individualistic in protecting speech to the level we do. They do not understand why we tolerate KKK rallies or Nazi flags, or other inflammatory speech. I understand where they are coming from, but as an American I like things the way they are. Restricting someone elses speech always comes with the possibility that mine will be restricted in the future. It is worth it in my opinion to tolerate the free speech of offensive or stupid people in order to protect the free speech of us all. They are free to have the laws they wish as we are free to have ours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
