R v. Zundel in 1992 set legal precedent on this. This is the power of controlling the courts. You know what you’re doing is illegal, but the liberal patsies still do it.
Is this even a problem? Like, how many people are denying the holocaust? Trudeau is just doing this to suck up to special interest groups, as per his normal disgusting behaviour. He doesn’t care about anything, he just does things for votes. I predict he’ll come out as a tranny by 2025 to win more votes.
Exactly you can't scrutinize, confirm or deny because it's simply a taboo subject that can't be touched. Gives the impression that they have something to hide.
Worse than holocaust denial is this causes debate to be illegal about the Holocaust as well. If you mention things that go against the NGO narrative they will use this law to go after you. It's dystopian
I can't see this really helping anyone. I'd rather know who the haters are.
On one hand this restriction by itself is reasonable enough. On the other, restrictive speech does concern when it comes from a government which freezes that bank accounts merely for donating to protests that our great leader does not support.
The biggest problem with this is that it's an inversion of the master/servant relationship between the public and the government that's critical to a free society.
In a free society, the public are the master and the government are the servants. The public, through representative democracy, tell the government how to govern based on the public's beliefs and opinions.
What have here is the government telling the public what to think/believe. That's not the government's role in a free society. That's what governments do in totalitarian dictatorships like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the government is supreme and the public is subordinate. It's supposed to be the other way around in a free society. That's exactly why freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are at the very top of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US Bill of Rights etc.
You cannot deny the Holocaust in a country supporting a genocide in Yemen and boasting zero limits on abortion, the systematic extermination of a subset of the population.
R v. Zundel in 1992 set legal precedent on this. This is the power of controlling the courts. You know what you’re doing is illegal, but the liberal patsies still do it.
Is this even a problem? Like, how many people are denying the holocaust? Trudeau is just doing this to suck up to special interest groups, as per his normal disgusting behaviour. He doesn’t care about anything, he just does things for votes. I predict he’ll come out as a tranny by 2025 to win more votes.
Well that's just great. Now I have to deny the Holocaust on principle.
These totalitarian bastards never make life easy.
Exactly you can't scrutinize, confirm or deny because it's simply a taboo subject that can't be touched. Gives the impression that they have something to hide.
I mean the Cons pushed for it. They introduced the bill, so why should we surprised that the Libs now follow suit?
Worse than holocaust denial is this causes debate to be illegal about the Holocaust as well. If you mention things that go against the NGO narrative they will use this law to go after you. It's dystopian
I can't see this really helping anyone. I'd rather know who the haters are.
On one hand this restriction by itself is reasonable enough. On the other, restrictive speech does concern when it comes from a government which freezes that bank accounts merely for donating to protests that our great leader does not support.
The biggest problem with this is that it's an inversion of the master/servant relationship between the public and the government that's critical to a free society.
In a free society, the public are the master and the government are the servants. The public, through representative democracy, tell the government how to govern based on the public's beliefs and opinions.
What have here is the government telling the public what to think/believe. That's not the government's role in a free society. That's what governments do in totalitarian dictatorships like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the government is supreme and the public is subordinate. It's supposed to be the other way around in a free society. That's exactly why freedom of conscience and freedom of expression are at the very top of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the US Bill of Rights etc.
Are the Cons which introduced this bill also part of this government telling the public what to think and/or believe?
The anti white racists wearing tiny hats.
You cannot deny the Holocaust in a country supporting a genocide in Yemen and boasting zero limits on abortion, the systematic extermination of a subset of the population.
Makes sense. Speech is not absolute, but limited, for exactly this purpose.