Not quite true. I've lived all over the world, and while I'll agree that I prefer the U.S. to most, Canada > U.S.
i like canada, and love to vist, but their restrictions on free speech are positively orwellian imo, the most important rights are those recognized by the 1st and 2nd amendments canada recognizes either right in any meaningful way
Uhh, lmao, what restrictions on free speech?? They're just like the U.S., you can say pretty much what you want, because no one in power has to listen anyway, and those not in power are busy with their toys.
Ricter, comparative law between canada and US makes this abundantly clear that you are wrong. i have about 10 pages of case law cites if you care... i will summarize here. if u want the cites i can pm or post them here. i quote the relevant sections near the end of this post... #1 i suggest you go to the canadian civil liberties website where there are numerous examples of case law on canadian speech restrictions FAR more restrictive than the US #2 "hate speech" is illegal in canada. this includes denigrating a "group", and even applies to private conversation between consenting individuals if they are using a telephone #3 denial of the holocaust is illegal #4 case law establishes that even if group denigrating speech is TRUE, that verity is not a defense (seriously) #5 speech rights in canada are not inalienable and can be overridden by a mere PARLIAMENTARY OVERRIDE, which is a much lower standard than the US which would require a constitutional amendment #6 parliamentary debate when these so called hate speech laws were passed clearly established (this point was made several times) that canadian speech rights were not as strong as those in the US. that canada was choosing "civility" over more expansive speech rights, since there is of course a tradeoff between speech and civility (i prefer free speech to "civility" cause i like freedom) #7 the USA does not have so called hate speech laws. compare for example even the case law surrounding the most egregious speeches and marches (nazi marches in skokie come to mind) that are clearly illegal in canada, and the case law and statutes clearly establish this as i am a believer in evidence, i quote the canadian law regarding broadcasting: âA licensee shall not broadcast any abusive comment that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability.â* CONTEMPT??? lol. another statute "Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction. " the US has no such laws. because we have free speech i have TONS of case law cites if u are interested. but this issue is not debatable. canada made the decision, and openly stated it in the passage of these laws that they were not taking the same route as the US but was choosing to restrict speech much more than in the US in order to enhance civility, etc. that's their choice but it is nowhere near comparable vis a vis speech. any country that criminalizes speech like this cannot be reasonably said to have anywhere near our level of free speech
All that ^ may be true, I'll assume it is. Nevertheless, you don't feel it living on the ground here, which I've been doing for 10 years (in December) now--two provinces. And in the day to day conversations I've had over those years with my Canadian friends and colleagues, I find them, as a group, far more tolerant of discussing the "no no" topics like religion, politics, and Ford vs. Chevy than I ever found my countrymen, who seem to quickly resort to flag and bible thumping. Sorry, but it's really that simple and evident. The general consensus here is that Americans are afraid of a lot of stuff. So, ok, you're technically correct. Perhaps the difference is that Canadians show more self-restraint than is necessary, thereby giving themselves more than enough "room" inside their laws, where Americans show little self-restraint and so would feel "cramped" if they couldn't assert that the Holocaust never happened. Honestly, give me the first. I really don't need the freedom to be a complete moron. This is where idealism becomes madness.
MAY be true? is true none of the rest of what u said is on point. my point was that i *like* canada, but i don't like the way their political system does not respect two specific rights - speech, and the right to carry. the rest of your post is nice, but it is not the point i'm addressing. to ME, constitutional rights are important, and having a govt. that protects those rights is important as well. and in the case of those two rights, the US clearly protects them far more than canada. i am glad you can concede that. i am not saying americans are or aren't nicer, more tolerant, more nifty or whatever. the fundamental aspect of true free speech rights is that they only mean something if people have the right to publish and speak the controversial, objectionable, offensive, shocking, speech. the speech that does not fit the above rarely needs govt. protection because nobody cares. i suggest you read some voltaire if u don't get that. true free speech means accepting that citizens are the arbiters of what speech is true, not true, etc. NOT big brother that is the system of govt. i choose to live under the fact that it isn't felt "on the ground" by most is also irrelevant most people also never need the protection of a criminal defense attorney, miranda warnings, right to a jury trial, etc. but these are important rights too i would suggest. the rights that are HARD to protect, but ultimately necessary are the rights of a minority that are unpopular and controversial canada does not feel that way. they feel that controversial speech, speech that promotes "contempt" etc. is simply not "cricket" and can be criminalized. i prefer not to live in an orwellian world where big brother makes the decision as to what i can or can't hear or say. again, the rest of what u say is irrelevant to this point, since i was talking about specific consitutional protections, not the day to day stuff vagaries and platitudes you refer to. **** All that ^ may be true, I'll assume it is. Nevertheless, you don't feel it living on the ground here, which I've been doing for 10 years (in December) now--two provinces. And in the day to day conversations I've had over those years with my Canadian friends and colleagues, I find them, as a group, far more tolerant of discussing the "no no" topics like religion, politics, and Ford vs. Chevy than I ever found my countrymen, who seem to quickly resort to flag and bible thumping. Sorry, but it's really that simple and evident. The general consensus here is that Americans are afraid of a lot of stuff. So, ok, you're technically correct. Perhaps the difference is that Canadians show more self-restraint than is necessary, thereby giving themselves more than enough "room" inside their laws, where Americans show little self-restraint and so would feel "cramped" if they couldn't assert that the Holocaust never happened. Honestly, give me the first. I really don't need the freedom to be a complete moron. This is where idealism becomes madness.
also, another exceptionally important point is that the US has constitutional protection of rights that cannot be revoked without amendment. canada does not have that protection either i sugges you research the parliamentary override process. rights that are revokable by mere parliamentary override are hardly inalienable to put it mildly.
Speaking of rights, I heard the other day that immigrants INTO Mexico have very few rights. They want us to pander to their illegals, but a legitimate immigrant in Mexico is s second class citizen, by their own constitution. Hypocrisy must have emigrated into Mexico when no one was looking.
not to mention that, as i did mention mexico has FIERCE border protection on their southern border. that makes their criminal facilitation of those who cross north ironic (and hypocritical) to say the least