PressF4Respect

Boooo, you're a liberal now?

Yeah, he has become the ringmaster of misdirection. I heard he won an award on Penn and Teller's show.

ahhh you're slick, much respect but you really burst my bubble  with the direction I was going :(

or maybe it wasn't clear but you are too obtuse to further explain yourself,  what else did anyone expect you to do?

I don't think Cedric did anything "morally wrong" by stating a solid Democrat principle. That a government of elite oligarchs knows best over a parent, Especially the 77% fatherless black children in Democrat-run urban dystopias.

so that justifies Cedric's response then, like the riots, looting and murders because a cop killed a guy, it's really all the same in my view, more or less, do you see it as all justified?

all that typing just to be so wrong lol wow,  my main issue is claiming to care more for his child than he did, obviously you aren't a parent, perhaps ask a parent what kind of reaction they would have.

never mentioned wealth, but private schools give opportunities to kids who are in a school zone whcih is a bad area, its a bit complicated

also, i never meant for the whole thing to be privatized, my whole point was that it is a good alternative

well first of all if you live in a bad area you can go to another town where a school is in with private school

as well as if you want to raise your kids christian it teaches those values

We live in a pluralistic society, which represents (in principle) tolerance. Particularly racial and religious tolerance. So it's unlikely any group will advocate any kind of forceful removal of religion.

But we also have limited control of the future. There's no natural law that would prevent Americans and westerners in the future from creating a totalitarian state

That's why I'm a strong advocate of careful analysis of religion (and ethnic, racial, sexual identity) issues

as opposed to loose cannon phrases relating Christianity to Islamic terrorism

early European theocracies, etc.

The Pathos organization seems to believe that religion will end naturally. They seem to have it planned out to where they may have to step in and protect theist's rights as a minority group.

The FFRF go to the extreme in demanding that a statue of Jesus, for the most part hidden from public view, be removed from a ski resort in Montana. That's just one example.

The statue was placed there to honor WWII vets as a sentimental remembrance of a similar statue on a hill in Italy. The idea is that since it's on public land, and promotes a specific religion, it should be removed. (They lost that particular case).

So alongside promoting our American pluralistic values, we all need to honor and value our constitution.

But realistically, anyone complaining about a statue very few people see probably abhors the sight of churches. A street corner church with a marquee inviting people to join them on Sunday is going to probably have a greater impact than a statue at a ski resort.  So, statues on ski resorts, cheerleader signs with scriptures, and nativity scenes on public property is what they go after.

Yes, and these would be an example of fringe groups you referred to.

Most Christians don't want a theocracy. For one, it would mean control by a dominant denomination. And, it's understood by most Christians that Christianity cannot, and should not be forced.

The suggestion that Christians want a theocracy I think is a bit more broad.

And this may be partly due to polls that are taken where someone says they favor (for lack of a better term) a spiritual theocracy where everyone seeks guidance from God independently, and by their own decision.

Which is kind of what the founding fathers were suggesting anyway.

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/censorship-in-nazi-germany/

The term "utopian" is just hyperbole. The song "Imagine" by John Lennon would be an example of imagining an ideal society (utopia).

Those are different nations with different dynamics. Atheists in America in general are going to vary. From atheists who like Christians to those that hate Christians. As far as atheist activists, I would say the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Patheos would be some of the closest organized atheists who would like to see religion removed from society. As far as individuals, Richard Dawkins and Aron Ra among others come to mind.

By the way, there are various claims that evangelicals in America want a theocracy. Do you think that's a valid claim?

right words which are hateful do neither of those, words that threaten, are a threat, which has been addressed in laws, so hate speech laws have expanded what is considered an "actual threat or threatened harm" 

To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet.

you agree that it's not defined I guess since that's the very first line in the quote, it's in bold now.  Judges under some guide lines determine if it's hate speech or not, again arbitrary.

insensitivity, bigotry,  insensitivity isn't arbitrary to you?  values of our society.?  so personal values don't matter I guess, not the ones you disagree with anyway.  most extreme emotion that belies reason, emotion isn't arbitrary?  who defines what belies reason?  seems arbitrary.  individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect. how authoritarian.  enmity and extreme ill-will against the, more feelings again.

so we circles back to what I said, this is more about feelings than anything else, your speech is limited by your government so certain people, with special protections don't get their feelings hurt.

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]

• Promoting enmity and extreme ill-will against a particular group
  
• Abusing, denigrating, and/or delegitimizing a particular group
  
• To render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience.
  

The mere existence of hate speech laws show a restriction on free speech. Compare that to the US where no such law exists, we definitely have more free speech

Not a single conviction from "fighting words" has been upheld by the SCOTUS since Chaplinsky, and it's precisely because America has a 1st amendment that can't be restricted from overbroad terms like generic "fighting words."

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and causes unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words). 

Feiner v. New York (1951)
In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not protected by the First Amendment.

The term "likely" shouldn't ever be a standard of evidence. It either is or it is not.

And how would that be determined? If Brandenburg said “bury the ni****s” in the middle of Harlem should he be prosecuted? What about saying the same thing Brandenburg said in a black neighborhood in Canada. Would it be protected?

how does one determine what will "incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace"?

I don't see where your government has made a legal definition of hate/hatred.

The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it. The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases which have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]

More recently, in 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]

in essence they made the person saying words the criminal instead of the violent person reacting to them,  I mean I totally get it, it's b.s. but I get it.

you don't have to react to words do you?  is there some strange lack of control in Canada that people can't?

let's say you are a protected class and I say something that's hate speech, you are so weak minded that you might result to violence because I said something that hurt your feelings,  these laws protect the mentally fragile,  this is the government you have so enjoy it, I'll keep the freedom I have thanks.

1. The person reacting to them would be charged.
   
2. What you're describing here isn't incitement. Incitement means:
   

To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet.

Is it ok to say “keep homosexuality out of public school?” In Canada?

It’s a simple question. Is saying the N word in public protected speech in Canada?

ahhh here we go, in other words Canadians can't control themselves when people talk bad to them, it all makes sense now, bunch of overly sensitive, easily made violent society.

They don't need any evidence at all. Just a premonition.

Public incitement of hatred

• 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.
    
• Marginal note: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.
    
• Marginal note: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.
    
• Marginal note:Definitions
  (7) In this section,
  
  communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)
  
  identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318 (groupe identifiable):
• Definition of identifiable group
  
  (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
  
  
  
  public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)
  

      statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)