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.
You are still a crown country are you not? That means Queen Elizabeth is the head of state. Maybe she doesn't stick her hand in your affairs much but she certainly reserves the right to do so if you do something she doesn't care for like she did with Jamaica when they tried to reimpose the death penalty for murder.
And we all know how much superior your system is with it's flavour of the month, Soros bankrolled dictator imposing his will on you with health care reform you do not want or bailing out a bank whose stolen your money and tanked your economy along with many others by globally selling worthless paper, a car company that was mismanaged, all without your explicit say so or getting you involved in stupid inane conflicts all over the globe that simply serve to thin our your pool of young shining lights and pad the coffers of your vice presidents who own shares of independent contractors hired to ride shotgun.
She might own shares of oil companies but she cannot step in and influence decisions made by parliament to pad her personal wealth.
Why is it every president you elect comes into office at one level of wealth but leaves a FRACK of a lot wealthier?
I'll take a benign Royal head of state over one you've made up from feet of clay any old day. she's served us well with minimal missteps for over seventy years. My bet would be you'd love to make that claim.
She never imposed universal health care on us, she never got us involved in any wars of global expansionism, she never left any diplomatic officers to be fried by ragheads without any attempt to assist them.
She accedes the affairs of state to the elected leaders of that sate with the admonishment that there will be a mature, thoughtful overseer watching for any malfeasance at which point she'll step in with a stern warning to shape up.
We love it. Kind of a rigid grandmother keeping an eye on her progeny to make sure they don't screw up her legacy.
And we all know how much superior your system is with it's flavour of the month, Soros bankrolled dictator imposing his will on you with health care reform you do not want or bailing out a bank whose stolen your money and tanked your economy along with many others by globally selling worthless paper, a car company that was mismanaged, all without your explicit say so or getting you involved in stupid inane conflicts all over the globe that simply serve to thin our your pool of young shining lights and pad the coffers of your vice presidents who own shares of independent contractors hired to ride shotgun.
She might own shares of oil companies but she cannot step in and influence decisions made by parliament to pad her personal wealth.
Why is it every president you elect comes into office at one level of wealth but leaves a FRACK of a lot wealthier?
I'll take a benign Royal head of state over one you've made up from feet of clay any old day. she's served us well with minimal missteps for over seventy years. My bet would be you'd love to make that claim.
She never imposed universal health care on us, she never got us involved in any wars of global expansionism, she never left any diplomatic officers to be fried by ragheads without any attempt to assist them.
She accedes the affairs of state to the elected leaders of that sate with the admonishment that there will be a mature, thoughtful overseer watching for any malfeasance at which point she'll step in with a stern warning to shape up.
We love it. Kind of a rigid grandmother keeping an eye on her progeny to make sure they don't screw up her legacy.
I never said we were BETTER. Just a bit more FREE. As for the Queen, I do not have a problem with her. She is fine people by me. It just seems a bit of a funny way to be governed but if it works for you, I am all for it.
Here is the language in sections 318 and 319 of The Criminal Code of Canada:
Quote:
318.
(1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of “genocideâ€
(2) In this section, “genocide†means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definition of “identifiable groupâ€
(4) In this section, “identifiable group†means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
319.
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Definitions
(7) In this section,
“communicatingâ€/« communiquer »
“communicating†includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
“identifiable groupâ€/« groupe identifiable »
“identifiable group†has the same meaning as in section 318;
“public placeâ€/« endroit public »
“public place†includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
One can be imprisoned and face the forfeiture of personal property merely as a result of speech, as opposed to actions.
Several of the terms used are ambiguous in nature. For example "private conversation" as used in 319(2). Even the term, "hatred" as used in 319(1) is open to significant interpretational disagreement.
Other terms are extremely broad such as the definitions of "public place" and "statements".
While not clear from the language in these statutes, the cases I've looked at suggest that there is a significant amount of prosecutorial and judicial discretion in determining whether or not someone will be prosecuted, and what penalties will be meted out. The term "good faith" is used within these laws; however, it is left to a judge to decide whether or not a defendant's religious or rhetorical language was stated in "good faith". A judge is also free to speculate as to whether or not a statement might have incited others.
It's not my intent to criticize Canada's legal and governmental structures, we have plenty of problems in The US with our own. However, a couple of Canadian posters have presented a rather smugly utopian view of Canada/Canadians. There are plenty of good things about both countries (and most of the people who live there), and enough bad things that citizens of neither should feel comfortable adopting a sense of moral superiority.
I cannot say Canada is not free since I have never been there and only know a limited amount about that country and its people. I have met Canadians in Chicago and, to be honest, you cannot really tell them from Americans. They talk and look the same way and have no accents. But I do think they enjoy a bit of less freedom than we Americans enjoy. I can give one example because of the line of work I am in which is that, several years ago, many Canadians wanted to watch American TV. I guess their own TV is sort of lame up there or something. Maybe the Queen is on it all day. So when DirecTV and Dishnetwork came out, some enterprising Canadians got the bright idea about coming into the USA and buying satellite TV systems and hooking them up in Canada since the signals from USA satellites also cover Canada. And they did that and sold a boat load of them. Then Canada made them illegal and told all Canadians that, if they did not turn the units in, they might get up to 5 years in jail and anybody caught selling one would get up to 7 years in jail! To me, that is not freedom. I do not want a Queen telling me what I can watch on my own TV that I paid for. If I wanted to watch Canadian TV in the USA, I could buy one of their dishes and watch all I want of it without the FBI showing up at my door.
That is a rather stupid example. Canadian TV has all of the programming and channels that American TV has, it just costs more. That is why people buy US satellite dishes, and cable companies force the government to clamp down on it because they pay for licensing these channels in Canada.
It's akin to saying that people in the US are charged for illegally downloading movies and other content, thus the US is not free.
That is a rather stupid example. Canadian TV has all of the programming and channels that American TV has, it just costs more. That is why people buy US satellite dishes, and cable companies force the government to clamp down on it because they pay for licensing these channels in Canada.
It's akin to saying that people in the US are charged for illegally downloading movies and other content, thus the US is not free.
Canada does, however, have a domestic content law as defined by The CRTC, which is applied to radio and television communication (including satellite and cable). This isn't unique, as many countries have similar laws. But it does affect the percentage of foreign (read: mostly US) programming which can be offered in Canada.
The Heritage Foundation ranks countries on a freedom scale every year. Canada and the US are quite similar with Canada ranked #6 and the US ranked #10 out of 177 countries.
The US has 25% higher GDP per capita which generally reflects quality of life.
Oh no you didn't. The HERITAGE FOUNDATION? You're using that bastion of neo-con, right wing extremist ideology as a source of anything? lol Please spare us that right wing trash. Can't you ever come up with some neutral sources? A university? A newspaper? But Heritage Foundation? Come on now, really?
And we all know how much superior your system is with it's flavour of the month, Soros bankrolled dictator imposing his will on you with health care reform you do not want or bailing out a bank whose stolen your money and tanked your economy along with many others by globally selling worthless paper, a car company that was mismanaged, all without your explicit say so or getting you involved in stupid inane conflicts all over the globe that simply serve to thin our your pool of young shining lights and pad the coffers of your vice presidents who own shares of independent contractors hired to ride shotgun.
She might own shares of oil companies but she cannot step in and influence decisions made by parliament to pad her personal wealth.
Why is it every president you elect comes into office at one level of wealth but leaves a FRACK of a lot wealthier?
I'll take a benign Royal head of state over one you've made up from feet of clay any old day. she's served us well with minimal missteps for over seventy years. My bet would be you'd love to make that claim.
She never imposed universal health care on us, she never got us involved in any wars of global expansionism, she never left any diplomatic officers to be fried by ragheads without any attempt to assist them.
She accedes the affairs of state to the elected leaders of that sate with the admonishment that there will be a mature, thoughtful overseer watching for any malfeasance at which point she'll step in with a stern warning to shape up.
We love it. Kind of a rigid grandmother keeping an eye on her progeny to make sure they don't screw up her legacy.
The problem with you, BruSan, is that you don't understand Americans.
We are the JINGOIST STATES OF AMERICA. We wear lapel flag pins, weep at the Star Spangled Banner, and have a whole set of mythological beliefs we attach to the U.S. For example, that this is the best country in the world, that only here can people get rich, that this place is so f good that anyone who doesn't become a millionaire just doesn't feel like it, that all technology, medical advances, and everything good originated here and nowhere else, that we are the ideal pattern for the rest of the world, that we owe it to other countries to force them to become like us, and that anyone who notices how well people in other countries are living is just one huge Commie.
Not only are people in Canada not less free in any measurable way, but neither are people in any other first-world nation in Europe or Asia, for that matter.
They can all pursue work and careers as they like.
They can all own property and make pretty much the same set of decisions about their households.
They can all vote and participate in a representative democratic system.
They can all express any opinion they like without government imprisonment.
They can all gain access to a set of rights and trial if they get in trouble.
About the only thing Americans have on top is that they have the "right" to forego healthcare and to arm themselves to the teeth out of some fearful fantasy that they can stop the government if they so choose.
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.
