PressF4Respect

The key values of the Charter come from the phrase "free and democratic society" and should be used as the "ultimate standard" for interpretation of section 1. These include values such as:

respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".

The Court presents a two step test to justify a limitation based on the analysis in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. First, it must be "an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society", and second it must be shown "that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified".

The second part is described as a "proportionality test" which requires the invoking party to show:

• First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective;
  
• Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question;
  
• Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".
  

you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.

They already have basic rights, I'm not saying they should have that taken away. It is not, however, their right to be free from consequences. It is much less safe to keep children around adults partaking in LGBT lifestyles, which is why discrimination in some scenarios may be understandable. 

Conservatives care more about pandering to queers than actually bother to conserve anything, let'a face it: American conservatism is a hilarious failure.

How's that for British diplomacy?

Well...I would have to agree that DebateArt is a cut above other sites that I have participated in.

And as feel I liberally democracised rather than dictatacised , then I see no reason to go anywhere else.

Do you feel autocracised in any way?

N.B.  I made up democracised , autocracised and dictatacised, but they seem to work O.K.....It always worked for George Dubya.

Debate websites is a competitive market

I did NAZI that coming...

That's some chutzpah you got there buddy.

Thanks for your interpretation

Looks like you can’t read like me

Laughable.

Ya about that 😬

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

They’re welcome to try.

If we can destroy your government and destroy your industry without breaking a sweat? Definitely. The nation that can cripple another nation is inherently advanced and therefore superior.

Canada doesn't have anything like libel laws?  do you know what they are and what they do?  I'm quite frankly shocked. 

Your link shows the U.S. has whistle blower protections.

Cases that are proven to violate the constitution are overturned there are thousands of cases you can read.

Schenk v. United States (1919)

Freedom of speech can be limited during wartime. The government can restrict expressions that “would create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Debs v. United States (1919)
The First Amendment did not protect an anti-war speech designed to obstruct recruiting

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the school’s mission to discourage drug use.

(just to name a few)

so your not going to deny my points on hate speech, I mean you could have just admitted it but that would be expecting too much I guess.

the fact that your government can restrict your speech like that is really all that needs to be said, you don't have a right to free speech because it's been restricted and could be further right?  why not?  hate speech is vague, abstract etc  since your government is defining it they can further define it, what's to stop them? 

it speaks for itself, I guess you wanted me to read up on the charter because you didn't understand it?  you don't have rights, you have privileges granted to you by the government subject to change by the government.  Maybe you don't understand the difference between that and the U.S. constitution?

When the [Canadian] government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional.

the incorporation of section 1 in the Charter proves that freedom of expression, which is a basic right, may be limited when its exercise causes harm to the public interest or the rights of others.

The only reason people tune in to CNN is to get their daily 2 minutes of hate in. Just like the socialists in the book 1984.

Fox News isn't a panicporn site

demanding a revolution in the streets

a government lockdown of the citizens for a flu-like virus

and the hatred of people who don't think as you do. Also if you don't exhibit the proper level of hate, you will be doxxed and canceled.

привет русский агент

Really? Hmm let’s see would the Russians come after us first or Europe? We have nukes. Russia has nukes. You on the other hand 😬

Irrelevant. We’d defeat your military easily. We’d take Ottawa within a month. You couldn’t do the same in a 1v1 with minimal external influence. Just admit it, American military is far superior in technology and numbers compared to Canada. 

Sometimes, I view the Democrats as Emperor Palpatine, creating discord so that America willingly gives up freedom and liberty for safety.

Yup, Luxembourg is gonna send it’s troops to fight against the Americans.

NATO countries can’t do anything without the US. If we withdrew from NATO every single country would have to deal with the Russians. Have fun with that.

That wasn’t the premise. In a 1v1 the US would crush Canada. If you disagree with that then you’re ignorant or you need help lol.

hate speech is a made up bs term, but content that wouldn't be permitted in Canada would be permitted in the U.S. because of the constitution so....

the U.S. citizens have a God given right to free speech/press, a right the government must recognize, does Canada?  or is Canada's freedom of the press given to them by the government?

the U.S. has overreaching interference from the state?  any examples to back up that claim?

Freedom of the press is not construed as an absence of interference or outside entities, such as a government or religious organization...

Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state;

the list of censorship examples doesn't help your case, they get overturned in court because of the constitution, unlike Canada's hate speech laws.

Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists.

Guess it makes actual genocide okay when you put it like that.

Dominant culture writes the rules.

Which laws restrict the press in the USA? The courts have sided with the press countless times.

Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists.

But once again you change the topic.

Sure they’ll say nukes were very efficient at stopping guerilla tactics once and for all.

Was there a physical occupation of the US military of the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos? Nope.

Lmao 1812😂. Ya I’m talking about right now.

We fund NATO.

Our military is far superior and it would end your government in an instant. You guys couldn’t even come close to D.C.