6 ms·

Absolutely nothing said here is "trying to suppress discussion" or "suppress legal speech". He's sharing his personal opinion on Canadian media consumption habi

by wk_end 2y ago

Absolutely nothing said here is "trying to suppress discussion" or "suppress legal speech". He's sharing his personal opinion on Canadian media consumption habits, which - I suggest you read the Bill of Rights? - he's completely free to. (that said: I believe he said this in Canada, where the Bill of Rights isn't applicable. We have a similar-but-not-the-same right to freedom of expression enshrined in our Charter, though.)

arcticbull 2y ago
Further, it is worth pointing out to the Americans in the audience, Canada's freedom of expression isn't anywhere near as blanket-permissive as the US. That's before you get to the Notwithstanding Clause.
- bawolff 2y ago
  This may be true, but i honestly think canada strikes a good balance. Like i'd be curious if anyone has any examples of things that would be protected by the first amendment in usa but not protected by section 2(b) where they think usa made the better choice. The notwithstanding clause is quite icky. Thankfully its rarely used outside of quebec although the recent "parent's rights" bill in saskatchewan is quite gross.
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I totally agree.
bawolff 2y ago
We actually do have a bill of rights. It predated the charter but basically had no teeth, so its largely ignored. It does have slightly more rights than the charter. Laws (both federal & provincial) have to follow the charter (unless the notwithstanding clause is invoked). For the canadian bill of rights, basically any ambiguities in federal laws are supposed to be interpreted to be consistent with it, but it cant override anything. Which is pretty damn useless and the reason the charter was created.
- efitz 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bawolff 2y ago
  [In response to the flagged and dead post (i know its bad form, but i feel i must because this is a really important part of canada) - we do have free speech rights with teeth in canada. They just come from the charter of rights not the canadian bill of rights.]
efitz 2y ago
Actually when acting as an agent of the government he does NOT have the right to try to influence people to deprive Americans of their rights. “Personal opinion” only applies in personal context. If he’s wearing his ambassador hat then it’s not personal, it’s official.

by wk_end 2y ago

arcticbull 2y ago

Further, it is worth pointing out to the Americans in the audience, Canada's freedom of expression isn't anywhere near as blanket-permissive as the US. That's before you get to the Notwithstanding Clause.

bawolff 2y ago
This may be true, but i honestly think canada strikes a good balance. Like i'd be curious if anyone has any examples of things that would be protected by the first amendment in usa but not protected by section 2(b) where they think usa made the better choice. The notwithstanding clause is quite icky. Thankfully its rarely used outside of quebec although the recent "parent's rights" bill in saskatchewan is quite gross.
- arcticbull 2y ago
  For what it's worth, I totally agree.

bawolff 2y ago

We actually do have a bill of rights. It predated the charter but basically had no teeth, so its largely ignored. It does have slightly more rights than the charter. Laws (both federal & provincial) have to follow the charter (unless the notwithstanding clause is invoked). For the canadian bill of rights, basically any ambiguities in federal laws are supposed to be interpreted to be consistent with it, but it cant override anything. Which is pretty damn useless and the reason the charter was created.

efitz 2y ago
[flagged]
bawolff 2y ago
[In response to the flagged and dead post (i know its bad form, but i feel i must because this is a really important part of canada) - we do have free speech rights with teeth in canada. They just come from the charter of rights not the canadian bill of rights.]

efitz 2y ago

Actually when acting as an agent of the government he does NOT have the right to try to influence people to deprive Americans of their rights. “Personal opinion” only applies in personal context. If he’s wearing his ambassador hat then it’s not personal, it’s official.