SkyDekker

I asked you expound on something you posted. Typical, post bullshit and when asked start calling names. If you don't understand what you read and hear, don't just repeat it, ask questions.

back up your reasoning by continuing it.....Should all laws regarding firearms be taken off the books because criminals will not follow them anyways? Or are you able to decide which laws criminals will follow and which they won't?

So you can't back it up...fair enough, I figured as much, it is by far the most stupid argument. But a favourite talking point to throw out there. Irony being that in the same post you accuse liberals of being lemmings.

That was your argument, back it up.

Criminals tend not to obey any laws. Are you advocating absolutely no laws related to guns? If you are advocating any law, what makes you think a criminal would follow that law? Minors cannot purchase guns in Canada. Minors have clearly purchased guns in Canada, so they clearly do not obey that law. Do you think that law should change to?

Cool little article prof, nice break from guns in England.

This is the subjective. When the people in power believe that "blacks are fucking stupid niggers" they may then institute a ban on hate speech - hate being contrary to what they believe. South Park did an episode where "nigger guy" was banned because it was hate speech. "Nigger" wasn't banned. Hate speech is ALWAYS based on the subjective interpretations of the hearer. What happens if radical Christians take over and view "bible thumper" as hate speech? They ban it, thus ensuring continuation of their view of an orderly society - until they are usurped by another group, who ban the term "secularist" because it is hateful. So let's just make sure people can say all they want. If it causes damage, then make the person pay for it. But I'd like to see the free exchange of ideas - even those I find revolting. Lot of silly what ifs. I especially like the invoking of South Park as a clear example of what could happen. Maybe Britney Spears has an opinion on the matter as well, we could ask Perez Hilton what he thinks.... Fact remains that in practice, as long as it has been in Canada, it works in a way that I prefer over the US system, where those who are hurt by speech have to pay to have it continue. Your second last sentence clearly does not work in practice. Those who cause the damage are not made to pay for it, they are rewarded.

Incorrect. The hearing that the youtube shows is a legal part of the tribunal process. Mr. Levant was there under subpoena. The evidence he gave was part of that which would have been used to determine whether he would have to pay the plaintiff had it gone to conclusion. It is like pre-trial. It matters, but isn't really the actual trial.

Based on history, it would appear it would have been dismissed.

Just like the yelling of "communist" or "liberal" or "unpatriotic" is being used to stiffle conversation. One of the clear trends in the US is the complete degeneration of any form of public debate. The clear lies being told on a continued basis are a good example. PC isn't the cause, societies penchant for demanding to be right is to blame. Just look on here and see how quickly debate detoriorates and compare it with how often people actually change their opinion. (Never mind that opinion is now being shaped by news entertainers who tell Muslims to take a flying carpet or a camel in stead of an airplane)

He was never let off the hook by the tribunal, as you state. The complainant withdrew the complaint. There was never an actual hearing, nor a ruling. Just a lot of bombastic speaking. He really should get a talk show on Fox.

I wonder if Arabs have better spelling and grammar on their protest signs......

No, the definition of the Law and judicial system.

Much higher costs related to law suits keep Phelps spewing his hatred. If my choice is between costs suppressing hate speech or costs fuelling hate speech, I would prefer they suppress hate speech. Hence my preference for the Canadian system.

I vote conservative in Canada, but I guess that does put me around the Democrats in the US. fact remains that the level of spending in the US has almost never been sustained by actual revenues in the last 40 years. (and there certainly have been Republican governments in that time frame, so it isn't all the communists' fault). A 40 year history shows you have been completely unable to control spending, when that remains the same, raising revenues is the only other option. I understand some of you believe you can raise government revenue by lowering taxes. However, one look at your current situation makes it quite clear that is not true. Hence, whatever label you want to give me....taxes will have to go up significantly.

because they are two different things. Hate speech falls under the criminal code (federal). The human rights tribunal in the Levant "case" is a provincial body, which has absolutely nothing to do with the federal criminal code and any case law associated with it. read the following link: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/page2-en.asp (Also important to note that private conversations are specifically excluded from the Criminal Code provision against hate speech.)

No

Agreed. The point I was trying to discuss was the actual benefit of the almost unlimited free speech in the US over slightly limited free speech in Canada. The only point raised so far is the slippery slope theory. When pressed for an example, none has been brought forward. I prefer the canadian system and have no issue with the limitation on hate speech. I like that the marine's father would have bene protected in Canada. No system is perfect, however I prefer how our system works over the American system.

There was never a case. (Strong hint, video cameras are not allowed in Canadian court rooms)

it is a societal limit on free speech, not a government limit. So completely different from what we are discussing.

Of course you can spend less, and in all likelihood it will have to be a combination of both. I don't think that only spending less is a viable option for the immense deficit and subsequently growing debt and debt load. For more than 40 years you have been spending more than you receive (with only a handful of years in which this wasn't the case) Take 1968. Mandatory spending was magnitudes lower than it is now, and even then the outlays were greater than receipts.

Just so I make sure we are talking about the same thing, can you tell me what you think my point is?

My farts stink to, but it has nothing to do with our discussion. Thanks for stopping by though.

It's a prediction. I don't believe corporations will see the actual high costs they are providing for now. Now you are talking something different. I was speaking to corporations who have announced entering provisions. You seem to be talking about federal money and taxation. They are not related. You aren't taxed enough. Even before HC reform you have been sytematically spending more than you are earning at almost all levels of government. It is one of the inherent flaws of short term elected governments. Politicians will do whatever gets them elected and gets them re-elected. Only short term consequences matter. Some poor shmuck at some point is going to have to stand up and explain how taxes will have to go up.

I know fear mongering got a war started, but it didn't prevent HC reform and I don't buy the link between PC and laws limiting free speech. (Its probably a lot more related to the growth in multi-ethnic populations than a significant shift in thought.)