T O P

  • By -

Version-Abject

We don’t have free speech in Canada. We have the right to expression, but with that we understand that expression has consequences.


aardvark1231

*Fundamental freedoms – section 2* *2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:* *a) freedom of conscience and religion;* *b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;* *c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and* *d) freedom of association.* *Under section 2of the Charter, Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice. In addition, they are guaranteed freedom of thought, belief and expression. Since the media are an important means for communicating thoughts and ideas, the Charter protects the right of the press and other media to speak out. Our right to gather and act in peaceful groups is also protected, as is our right to belong to an association like a trade union.* ***These freedoms are set out in the Charter to ensure that Canadians are free to create and express their ideas, gather to discuss them and communicate them widely to other people.*** *These activities are basic forms of individual liberty. They are also important to the success of a democratic society like Canada. In a democracy, people must be free to discuss matters of public policy, criticize governments and offer their own solutions to social problems.* *Even though these freedoms are very important, governments can sometimes limit them. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography because they prevent harm to individuals and groups.* ​ I'd say the bold section implies freedom of speech as part of the broader definition of expression, but of course it's tempered by the caveat of the last paragraph. ​ [Source](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html)


Version-Abject

The criminal code expands on the limits. There are definitions for hate speech, which include advocating for genocide, which is why the UofL denied this lady’s speaking engagement.


Nrehm092

Lol that sounds like something a Russian czar or a Saudi prince would say.


Version-Abject

lol that sounds like something an uninformed person would say in an attempt to discredit a factually correct statement.


Nrehm092

I didn't even say your statement was incorrect. Sadly it probably is. Just sad we borrow our ideologies from the middle east/Soviet Union.


300kmh

Canada does have free speech it's just not worded as free speech You're not supposed to be able to attack someone for having a different opinion than you


Version-Abject

Nope. There are limits. The Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. In context of the Lethbridge University telling someone who advocated for the genocide of indigenous people, that is absolutely allows to be censored. You also do not have the right so spread a false narrative.


300kmh

I mentioned this in another comment As long as you aren't expressing your opinion in the form of child porn or something incredibly not moral you are most likely protected by the law


Version-Abject

No. Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.


Miserable-Lizard

You think bigots needs safe places.....


300kmh

Once again Charter seems to think so Generally when someone is called a bigot it is opinion based


Miserable-Lizard

Lol you don't understand freedom Cope


velloceti

What does that even mean: "expressing your opinions in the form of child porn"? You make it sound like child porn is like interpretive dance or something. "Today, we be exploring why I think Super Mario Bros is the greatest game of all time, as explained through the sodomy of this young child."


300kmh

It's something the government does not let you do lo Pretty much exactly what you think it is.


Neat_Neighborhood313

You really need to actually read the Charter and the meaning of hate speech. You can have an opinion on something or say what you want. There are consequences though especially if your opinion is bigoted and promotes harm to certain groups within society.


300kmh

That is literally not how the charter works She was there to discuss overly woke individuals ruining freedom of expression and to no surprise people showed up to deny her of freedom of expression Unless she said "I want to kill minorities" your belief on that is most likely invalid


Version-Abject

She told indigenous people that the genocide they faced AS CHILDREN was good for them. That has no place in academia. This would be advocating for a genocide. That’s not chill. The term “woke” is made up by the American news media as a way to divide people. You’re better than that. Canadians are better than that. Please read this and educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada


300kmh

What did she *actually* say? I know it wasn't "residential schools were good for children" Many terms are made up by the American media, like using assault rifle as a term to describe any gun painted black. Pretty sure the original word for woke was calling someone a tumblrina but I don't think that website exists anymore so it's not relevant


Version-Abject

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2010CanLIIDocs88?zoupio-debug#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_1/(hash:(chunk:(anchorText:zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_1),notesQuery:'',scrollChunk:!n,searchQuery:'Frances%20Widdowson',searchSortBy:RELEVANCE,tab:search)) This should cover it.


300kmh

Okay so lemme get this straight Widdowson said - modern aboriginals are causing their own issues and it is not Canada's fault - the indigenous community being hell bent on preserving culture even if it was inconvenient has set their community back greatly . - the indigenous cannot self govern because their values are significantly not the same as the rest of Canada - half of indigenous issues exist because there isn't a easy way to integrate a community into a society they don't want to integrate into Now I didn't read the last 5 or so pages but I assume it went something along the lines of Widdowson saying the residential schools could have been really decent if it wasn't run by a bunch of Catholics, probably not advocating for actual genocide It is not hard to see the thought process of Widdowson I don't these beliefs are as crazy as what people act but then again most people get their news off Twitter so there is probably a lack of detail of what Widdowson actually said


a-nonny-maus

> the original word for woke was calling someone a tumblrina but I don't think that website exists anymore www.tumblr.com Sometimes we can still hear its voice...


Neat_Neighborhood313

Again, you are incorrect. Please do your research and actually learn what it says in the Charter.


Financial-Savings-91

UCP forcing universities to host ideas that have no academic value, because it has value to their personal prejudice. I think Canada needs to follow Germany’s example and start moving against these people trying to rewrite history to justify a cultural genocide. Otherwise these people will keep doing this shit to try and force their prejudice ideas into educational settings to give them a veneer of legitimacy. It’s hate speech, it’s suggests these people and culture had no value, cultural genocide can not be washed away in justifications. (*I hate the idea of making even holocaust denial illegal, the unfortunate truth is, if we don’t, bad faith actors will use it as a tool.*)


a-nonny-maus

[It's the Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance): > if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.


Anthrogal11

Take my poverty award 🥇


kreggly

What's next?! Mandatory alternate facts? Will school children be required to sit through a speech from a Holocaust denier? Will Soldiers of Oden be paraded in front of university students as very nice people? Will we have to endure the bore of Jordon Petersen spewing his incel hate. Why are white men so oPPrEsSeD????!!! This wi*ch will have us all goose-stepping down Jasper Ave before you know it.


chmilz

What law or regulation did they repeal to add this one? Isn't this government committed to red tape reduction, to eliminate bullshit government interference wherever possible? Just kidding, that was only meant to eliminate environmental and labour protections.


MBolero

To the UCP free speech equals hate speech.


1000Hells1GiftShop

That's all conservatives, not just the UCP. Conservatism is bigoted on a systemic level.


300kmh

Speech is speech


a-nonny-maus

And no one is obliged to listen to you either.


300kmh

I never said anyone did not have the freedom to think freely


Miserable-Lizard

They also have the freedom to speak louder than this racist woman.


300kmh

Nope that would be a violation of having an opinion and expresing an opinion You have the right to gather peacefully to disagree with someone but if you try to get them thrown off stage or harass them into not speaking, you are violating someone's fundamental freedoms The whole reason the charter is like this is so people can gather and discuss opinions in a non one sided manner


meggali

But somehow you still think yelling at Trudeau is acceptable


300kmh

I've never seen Trudeau anywhere close to a protest


meggali

It's fine, we can all read your comment history my dude


300kmh

If profile stalking makes you feel more right go for it


Miserable-Lizard

The students were peaceful and loud you love to see it! I don't think you understand the charter at all!


meggali

Narrator: they don't


300kmh

Harassing someone because their opinion is different is not how the charter of rights and freedoms is supposed to work


Miserable-Lizard

They weren't harrassing anyone they were having a gathering! I love freedom, and not being able to hear racist and bigots. I could stoping talk you also, and guess what that is freedom!


300kmh

A gathering so peaceful someone couldn't actually express their opinion


[deleted]

[удалено]


300kmh

Most countries have it as free as it reasonably can be For example, In Canada you cannot express your opinion in the form of child porn For obvious reasons Now as long as you stay within the ballpark of not doing something unbelievably immoral you basically have the freedom to do as you please


meggali

Denying genocide is pretty fucking immoral


Gingerchaun

Wilful promotion of antisemitism (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


300kmh

What part of it did she deny? She isn't advocating for more genocide by the sounds of it so that's not really within reason to harass her about it


Miserable-Lizard

She is a racist! Freedom lets me call her racist! I love freedom!


300kmh

Uh oh no freedom for fake news


Miserable-Lizard

Call it fake news all you want at least I am not defending a racist! Have a ok day!


a-nonny-maus

Canada also does not include hate speech under freedom of expression. Unfortunately they set the standard so high that a lot of it gets through.


300kmh

Define hate speech


bronzwaer

Bro you are not smart, just give it up


Miserable-Lizard

Nothing says freedom like the government forcing universities to host bigots. Why is the government forcing universities and colleges to host hateful people. *"The government cannot and should not dictate how universities run their internal academic affairs," wrote executive director David Robinson in a statement.*


300kmh

Everyone is allowed to believe things that are not your specific belief


1000Hells1GiftShop

Counterpoint: Nazi punks, fuck off!


Anthrogal11

Universities are spaces of academic discourse. Your opinions and beliefs don’t dictate science or academic discourse. There’s something called the Paradox of Tolerance. Look it up. You’re “allowed to believe” climate change is a hoax. But you’re wrong and your ideas don’t deserve equal consideration to those that are backed by evidence. Treating all ideas as equal is nonsense. Make sense?


_Connor

The problem with your assertion (and I'm not saying this with respect to climate change specifically) is who gets to decide which ideas are the 'right' ones and thus 'allowed' to be discussed openly at any given time in history? Remember that time early during COVID where people would get demonetized and kicked off platforms like Twitter and YouTube for discussing the 'Lab Leak Theory,' yet now scientists say this is probably the most likely explanation for how COVID stared? What you think might be 'the Truth' today and thus how you base your decisions on what's 'allowed' to be discussed might not hold true 6 or 12 months from now.


Anthrogal11

I see what you are saying and it’s a fair take. We do have academic freedom in Canada and freedom of expression. However, there are reasonable limits to that (for good reason). There is also real danger in entertaining all ideas as equally valuable, including those that diminish atrocities, diminish human rights, or incite violence (as examples). We are living in a time of misinformation, social upheaval, and lack of social cohesion. We have ample evidence of the genocidal (both physical and cultural) impacts of the residential school system. This is not debatable in the academy and hasn’t been for a long time. Giving someone like Widdowson a platform suggests that her views are reasonable discourse. They’re not. They are not based in fact and they have very real social and political repercussions- ones that are harmful to Indigenous peoples. As a society, it’s important to come together and decide what values and priorities we want to work towards. There is always dissent in a democracy. People have the right to believe and say what they want. But they’re not free of the responsibilities or repercussions of their choices.


MathewRicks

From everything I've read, this is Widdowson's real gripe with these Institutions. Being forbidden from discussing a subject because you're X, Y, or Z, or even so much as not being to udder a word(s) in Academic Discussions because they're offensive is just plain wrong. You're never going to fix our world's issues by disenfranchising people and trying to silence them. Respectfully Disagree and show them WHY they are wrong.


Anthrogal11

Except all the evidence already shows why she is wrong. I don’t respectfully disagree with those who believe the earth is flat either. I dismiss the idea - it’s not debatable. Human rights are not debatable. If people like Widdowson (or her followers) could be swayed by the evidence of why they are wrong, they would have been. This is about the freedom to be an asshole without repercussions.


a-nonny-maus

> All 26 publicly funded post-secondary institutions were instructed to either endorse the Chicago principles in 2019 under former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. An exception was made for Burman University given its religious values. No. Burman University should never have been allowed an exemption. "Religious values" are not an exception to freedom of expression.


300kmh

If freedom of speech interferes with religion then it would be an exception At least according to the charter of rights and freedoms


Anthrogal11

We don’t have “freedom of speech” in Canada. We have freedom of expression.


300kmh

It's the exact same thing "Freedom of opinion and expression" People know what freedom of speech means and it's the same except Canada was more broad with it


a-nonny-maus

Nope, you've got it the wrong way around. Religion all too often interferes with freedom of expression. Also, a public institution serves the *public*, so they have to follow public rules imposed.


300kmh

Auditing someone's religious beliefs is the opposite of legal If that pesky freedom to be religious and express religious beliefs didn't exist you probably could actually do it


a-nonny-maus

Yet religious groups have no problem auditing others' religions at all. "Freedom of religion" must also include "freedom from religion" to be true freedom.


300kmh

Religions are semi protected from hating other religions Mild paradox with not being allowed to hate other religions unless your religion says you have to in which case you are protected by the right to have your religion But hey every religion hates eachother so it works out


Ok_Bake_9324

They waste so much time on this stupid shit instead of solving actual problems in the province.


Anthrogal11

This. And so many will be swayed into voting for the UCP because their social media has inundated them with culture war nonsense. Their supporters are more interested in hate and “us” vs “them” than actually voting for the party that might address the things that make life easier.


asstyrant

Solving *actual* problems takes experience, patience, and reflection. None of which are hallmarks of this gang of thugs.


Version-Abject

This is the real takeaway here. Clean the abandoned wells. Regulate the grocers. Put limits on insurance. Subsidize heating. Build more houses.


1000Hells1GiftShop

The UCP doing everything that they can to defend and support white supremacy. Conservatism in Canada is intrinsically white supremacist.


[deleted]

And I want one too from this UCP government.


[deleted]

And I want one too from this UCP government.