You’re being unnecessarily alarmist. Canada and the US have different legal and judicial traditions as well as different cultures. The US does not tolerate hate speech laws - federal court rulings protecting both Nazis and KKK free speech are proof of that.
Well, it’s better to keep the government on it’s toes, than to sit back and relax. And our culture does change. It is very much different than it was 60 years ago. And even more differant than it was 100 years ago. We have thousands of more laws today than ever before. And it generally wasn’t accepted for government to be buying up private business years ago, like it is today, either.
Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. First off, here in America, we are already inundated with the whole “politically correct” speech requirements…can’t say anything that may “offend” someone else.
People in the US are welcome to say as many rude things as they would like, but free speech doesn’t exempt a person from being responsible. We are accountable for our actions.
Workplaces have an interest in promoting a safe environment for all employees. Sexual harassment is an awful thing, if you are the one being harassed.
Profiling is a long established criminal justice practice. Muslims in the US have suffered with profiling since 9/11 (and African-Americans have complained about it for even longer), but I haven’t heard too many conservatives complaining about that. But, like sexual harassment, I guess it doesn’t feel so harmless when it affects you.
look at the way talk-radio and certain conservative commentators are being accused of being responsible for Tillers murder in the msm. this thinking, no matter how illogical or inaccurate, will have the power of the federal govt when HR 1913 is signed into law.
I’ve actually read the memo. While most of it is reasonable concern over nazis, some of it is just downright stupid. For instance, there’s even one category by which liberals could be defined as “right-wing extremists”. Just more government stupidity.
it could also be read to say that a homosexual speaking to a group about how evil the Catholic church is for not allowing gay marriage would be inducing violence against Catholics.
true, so this bill ought to be stopped from becoming law.
My point was-it “could” be interpreted as saying lots of things it doesn’t actually say. Rejecting it on what it does say would be a far better argument.
first its unnecessary, second its worded vaguely enough to allow for any scenario the curernt powers determine.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work both ways. Under this law, some animals are more equal than others.
Would you care to explain your comment?
[Read George Orwell’s book.]
Homosexuals can get away with calling Catholic bigot simply for disagreeing with them.
If that is the case, that is is indeed vile and disgusting. Political Correctness now is invading the Pulpit. Attempting to control how God’s Representatives interpret the Truth of Scripture.
The issue is still alive–unfortunately.You respond to a a request a year later?
This has to be a record.
Old dead thread.
