Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #159 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
For people wondering why this is possible, allow me to explain. The United States of America's rights and freedoms are governed and detailed by the Constitution, which is a steadfast, unchanging document. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is similar, but has the flexibility to fit certain situations. The reason why the US really couldn't do anything about WBC is that they were technically exercising within the parameters of free speech. If they wished to ban them from protesting, then it would go against the constitution and cause a whole bunch of horse **** . Canada on the other hand, is able to pick and choose (based on evidence) of what is free speech and what is hate speech. (Just so people don't think that the Government has veto power over free speech, there are certain sections of our constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prevent the government from restricting what media and general people say). In essence (and theory), Canada is more run on a public opinion/reaction than political parameters, which is why WBC is banned.
#366 to #159 - superclamsquared has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #228 to #159 - appleboom (03/26/2013) [-]
There is some flexibility in the US, though. If all speech and expression were allowed, then we wouldn't have laws making it illegal for minors to view pornography.
User avatar #254 to #228 - ottoboys (03/26/2013) [-]
or pornography to view minors. ill leave now
User avatar #216 to #159 - jinjo (03/26/2013) [-]
TL;DR Section one says that certain rights and freedoms can be taken away under certain limitations, or if it infringes on another person's freedom.

Also, they aren't Canadian citezens, so I don't think we need to justify why we don't let them in right? Or am I wrong?
#180 to #159 - heroicvenom (03/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #194 to #180 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
It's not the US's fault, the constitution is one of thousands of documents outlining the rights and freedoms of people. Don't get me wrong, the constitution is an amazing piece of documentation, however, it has it's imperfections. Canada's charter of rights and freedoms wasn't signed until well after the Constitution was in place, and the governing body was able to see the pitfalls and benefits of the entire paper. So noticing the problems, we made a hybrid of the UK's charter and the US's constitution, allowing an organic document similar to the UK's which contained laws similar to the Constitution's which protected Canadian people.
#321 to #194 - anon (03/26/2013) [-]
It's not the US' fault. So the constitution depends of who?
User avatar #213 to #194 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
Holy **** that last bit sounded really weird, let me rephrase. "Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the organic capabilities of the UK's charter as well as the laws governing rights and freedoms in the Constitution."
User avatar #168 to #159 - snowshark (03/26/2013) [-]
"The United States of America's rights and freedoms are governed and detailed by the Constitution, which is a steadfast, unchanging document."

Do I need to define to you the meaning of the word "amendment"?
User avatar #183 to #168 - lokiwins (03/26/2013) [-]
Yeah but to amend the constitution it requires a huge amount of work by politicians, and anyone who would try to take away freedom of speech would most likely get ********** next election.
User avatar #188 to #183 - snowshark (03/26/2013) [-]
Oh I'm not saying that there aren't a mountain of things in the way of that (namely the ******* awful democratic system that has turned democracy in America into a "who is the lesser of two turds" competition).

I'm just saying that it isn't unchanging.
User avatar #205 to #188 - lokiwins (03/26/2013) [-]
Yeah I was about to say you are right, that it can be changed.
User avatar #182 to #168 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
Amendments are hard to change, just look at the second amendment and the problem it's causing. Canada's charter of Rights and Freedoms is much easier to change, it's hard to explain, but I'll put it as bluntly as I can. The last amendment (the 27th) added to the constitution was in 1992, since then it's been pretty much the same as it was in 1787. Canada's Charter on the other hand, is constantly evolving to fit the desires of the Canadian people. It is more... organic, than the constitution.
User avatar #197 to #182 - snowshark (03/26/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that the american democratic system isn't ******* terrible and based upon a massively outdated document that has caused a great deal of strife over the years. I'm just saying that it's not unchanging, it's just that the political system in the US is so awful that any changes made to it would be either too minute to make a dent or completely impossible to pass.
User avatar #206 to #197 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
That seems to be the trend. I wasn't trying to say the Constitution, as someone going into poli-sci I think it's one the most important documents of all time. That being said, all documents have imperfections, and while I admit that it is changing, the nature of the document itself is to be so steadfast that any government who tries to change it in a large way will run into road block after road block after road block. THis was designed to protect people's rights so that future governments wouldn't be able to take away rights. Unfortunately, it seems that people have found loopholes to enact prejudice and hate speech within legal parameters.
User avatar #223 to #206 - snowshark (03/26/2013) [-]
Such is the problem with a document that is centuries out of date. The document itself, the words on it and the laws themselves are entirely unimportant. What is important is the principles that it sets forth. Freedom, truth, honour and the like. These are fantastic principles that made America into one of the greatest nations of all time. However the world has changed more in the past 50 years than it has in the past 5000 years and the document itself is out of date, constricting the nation now rather than empowering it.

America is no longer the shining jewel it once was. Even as a Brit it saddens me that the principals set forth by the founding fathers (some of the greatest men of all time... even if they started the revolution because they didn't want to pay taxes...) are now shat on by the people they fought to protect.
User avatar #181 to #168 - shinypokemans (03/26/2013) [-]
Well, to be fair, it's really hard to get an amendment to pass. Hundreds of amendments have been proposed, but as of right now there's only 27.
User avatar #167 to #159 - NotChoCheese (03/26/2013) [-]
Also because "freedom of speech" is not described in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Freedom of expression" is. If that expression is offensive to other citizens, it can be banned.
User avatar #172 to #167 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
That totally slipped my mind, thanks for pointing it out though.
User avatar #174 to #172 - NotChoCheese (03/26/2013) [-]
No problem. It seems that Socials 10 did SOME good after all.
User avatar #185 to #174 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
I had such a bad teacher for socials 10... I had to learn all that stuff on my own to pass the provincial... and now look at me, going into poli-sci.
User avatar #193 to #185 - NotChoCheese (03/26/2013) [-]
Oh congratulations! If you don't mind me asking, where are you studying?
User avatar #198 to #193 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
Bishop's University starting out, then hopefully RMC.
User avatar #201 to #198 - NotChoCheese (03/26/2013) [-]
Quebec, nice.
User avatar #207 to #201 - DmOnZ (03/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, I thought, why not kick off my political career in a province that is the most involved. I can see my plan backfiring though... I try not to think about that too much.
User avatar #210 to #207 - NotChoCheese (03/26/2013) [-]
I'm sure you'll do very well. Best of luck!
 Friends (0)