Funny how we have literal monuments to the deaths that communism has caused, but somehow pro-communist and left-wing authoritarian speech doesn't qualify as dangerous anymore.
"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction...The benefits of suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression, which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression."
-Supreme Court of Canada, 2013
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott
Case number 33676
"Incorrect" opinions may include truthful statements. For example: pointing out that Mohammed was an illiterate warlord who married a child and who transmogrified Christian Scripture on the basis of the Arian heretic understanding conferred him by his uncle, though historically correct and factually true would no doubt constitute a hate crime. Pointing out that an individual is a biological man, verboten! Pointing out that the super-majority of those among the ~4,000 who perished in residential schools were dying on arrival from or soon contracted the tuberculosis ubiquitous at the time, a hateful fact worth censoring.
Funny how we have literal monuments to the deaths that communism has caused, but somehow pro-communist and left-wing authoritarian speech doesn't qualify as dangerous anymore.
Fucking clown world we live in.
"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction...The benefits of suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression, which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression."
-Supreme Court of Canada, 2013 Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott Case number 33676
Acton Institute commentary: https://blog.acton.org/archives/50857-when-free-speech-died-in-canada.html
"Incorrect" opinions may include truthful statements. For example: pointing out that Mohammed was an illiterate warlord who married a child and who transmogrified Christian Scripture on the basis of the Arian heretic understanding conferred him by his uncle, though historically correct and factually true would no doubt constitute a hate crime. Pointing out that an individual is a biological man, verboten! Pointing out that the super-majority of those among the ~4,000 who perished in residential schools were dying on arrival from or soon contracted the tuberculosis ubiquitous at the time, a hateful fact worth censoring.