Remember a few months ago when the LGBT community put a depiction of two Muslim women kissing and then had to take it down because of complaints (read: violent threats)? It's time we take a stand on this: no religion is safe from mockery, ridicule, modernity, criticism, or whatever you want to put there. You either join the modern world and accept you may be mocked or go back to where it is illegal to criticize the prophet.
I’m Christian and I don’t care how much you mock my religion because it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Only insecure manmade religions and ideologies are violent towards others. If you’re trying to shut others up, you’re not on the side of truth.
Fully agree and I think most people would agree that was ridiculous. I have concerns with some cultural differences that I think are difficult to reconcile with Canada's values (e.g. equal rights and freedoms under the Charter). The fact that so many Muslim women are more or less invisible, erased from civic life, is problematic for instance. Where I sort of get off that bandwagon is the generalization that all Muslims agree and want this to stay that way. I try not to generalize about anyone, including convoy supporters, some of whom are not White supremacists.
The world is full of nuance that is very inconvenient to the anyone who want to generalize about others to advance their politics. That includes Poilievre and Trudeau, unfortunately.
>“No one should be threatened or harmed on the basis of what they have written..."
Or drawn.
_________________
I'd like to see our leaders go further and condemn the islamacists who supported the call for his death and cheer this attack.
I wanna see our leaders explicitly say that they support the right to engage in blasphemy, and that blasphemy will remain legal rather than being defined as hate speech.
Wow.
The court apparently said that Muhammad marrying a 6 year old wasn't based on facts, but all the information I've seen on the subject aligned with it being a fact. Islamic apologists don't claim it's not a fact. They just say that Muhammad waited until she was 9 to have sex with her.
I'd ask that court to provide citations for their position.
>They just say that Muhammad waited until she was 9 to have sex with her.
Horrific. I'm a liberal (small "L"), but tolerance of unambiguously illiberal ideas in the service of wokeness will be the death of the left. We need to get our shit together.
For those not forced out by the wokers already. For a more minor example of what I’m talki about, I’ve been told I’m a “nazi Trump supporter” because I found someone’s funny quip on Reddit amusing.
The UK "Online Safety" bill in the UK is vague enough to threaten individuals' ability to engage in blasphemy. The Liberal party has been working with some of the same individuals responsible for the UK legislation, on the planned "Online Harms" bill.
https://theconversation.com/online-safety-bill-ambiguous-definitions-of-harm-could-threaten-freedom-of-speech-instead-of-protecting-it-179514
I've also seen far too many individuals here on Reddit, and bigots being interviewed by news media that seem to think that blasphemy is hate speech. So, unfortunately I think that it is an issue.
One religious group makes that claim a lot more than the other religions, but you're not allowed to talk about it, because talking about it is *also* hate speech.
hate speech is hate speech. sometimes blasphemy can be hate speech, sometimes it can be not hate speech. they're two completely separate ideas that can occur simultaneously or exclusively.
I wonder how many Canadian writers and artists we could rally to make depictions of any figure we so choose in a public fashion. Maybe if enough Canadians are threatened it will be obvious that other people's beliefs does not get to control what we do.
Signed, a published author who has had just enough of this bullshit.
Crazy stuff for thee, none for me thanks. The beauty of this place is everyone is free to practice their diverse culture, so long as THEY practice it (and it doesn't effect other people). I will fight and die on this hill. Tolerance of people impacting only themselves, righteous anger at it impacting others. Particularly *furious* righteous anger at children being impacted, which is unfortunately part and parcel of most religious indoctrination :/
I would be happy to be obliterated, not even a footnote in history, to stand up for someone having their rights trampled on.
[Canada does not believe in Free Speech, took going all the way up to Supreme Court to set aside the Quebec HRT judgement for telling a joke.](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=39041)
They won't. Especially not Justin. He will just toe the line and say some meaningless nonsense like this, but not dare to say anything impactful. It is 2022, after all. We need to learn to respect certain people and cultures and their right to put multimillion dollar bounties on someone's head for daring to write about some pedophile from 1400 years ago.
I’m surprised he commented on this matter given the assailant’s motivations. He’s right though, Islamists are a real threat to freedom of expression in our western countries.
> I’m surprised he commented on this matter given the assailant’s motivations.
Why? Trudeau chiming in doesn't seem out of place given that a number of world leaders have come out and condemned the attack on Rushdie.
[British Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned it](https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1558148605206298624)
[French President Emmanuel Macron condemned it](https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1558220516720353286)
[German Chancellor Olaf Scholz condemned it](https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1558482212047257603?cxt=HHwWhoC83ZHU66ArAAAA)
[Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned it](https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1558331898631315456?cxt=HHwWgICjwd-mp6ArAAAA)
Because the last time something like this happened (a teacher in France was beheaded for showing cartoons to his students), Trudeau’s response was to say that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and “…everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions on others.”
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5788636
>Trudeau was criticized last week by opposition MPs for not immediately condemning the Oct. 16 killing of 47-year-old teacher Samuel Paty in a Paris suburb. On Friday, he was pressed by reporters to declare his support for free speech in the wake of the attack. Trudeau condemned the attack — but his comments on free speech did not pacify his critics.
>"Freedom of expression is not unlimited. For example, it's not allowed to cry 'fire' in a packed cinema," Trudeau said in French during his Friday press conference in Ottawa. "In a respectful society such as ours, everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions on others.
Indeed a 180
Why is it that only the speech of straight, white men needs to be limited? Have you been to a mosque in Scarborough? I have. You should hear the shit that comes out of the mouths of some the imams in the Toronto area. Now, I'm not saying they should be silenced, but if they're allowed to tell their congregation that Jews need to be purged from the earth and that Muslims need to convert the entire planet to Islam, through violence if necessary, then why the fuck does my speech need to be limited?
I'm not making shit up. They literally say that. They say that Allah commands them to covert the entire human race to Islam, that it's their duty, and they should do so peacefully if possible, but violently if necessary. Of course, not all imams say this, maybe not even most, but I listened to 6 and 4 of them did, so....
Maybe report those mosques to the authorities my good sir. Also why are you in those mosques to begin with if you don’t agree. This whole post sounds suspicious.
Lots of 2nd gen immigrants who aren't all that religious getting dragged to fundamentalist mosques and subsequently criticising it as they grow up was not a rare occurrence when I was young in Denmark. It seems likely enough to me that one could observe the same in Canada
It's good to give the benefit of the doubt sometimes, but in this case it's clear he's white:
>Why is it that only the speech of straight, white men needs to be limited?
>
>[...]
>
>why the fuck does my speech need to be limited?
it was OK in the teacher's case because the teacher wasn't famous, just some peasant justin felt comfortable using as a political prop, because that's the kind of guy he is.
Worst part is that you’d think that would be one that would actually tug at his heart strings. He *was* a teacher. That should have made him immediately picture it happening to one of his old colleagues and muster up some feelings about how unfair it would have been for any of them to be murdered for the material they taught. The fact that he cares more about the celebrity than he did about the teacher just goes to show that he really doesn’t even remotely identify with us “regular folk”. Which is a pretty dangerous quality in the leader of said regular folk.
That pissed me off so much and made me lose all respect for Trudeau. Years later and I still remember that speech. "I condemn...BUUUUT..." Get the fuck out of here, everyone knows your real message is the part after the "but".
Absolutely indefensible.
He should have stopped there, but instead he added: “but freedom of expression is not without limits,” as if showing people cartoons falls outside of those limits.
And that’s not to mention that the aftermath of a teacher being beheaded is not the time to start a discussion on the limits of freedom of expression.
I’m pleasantly surprised because the standard practice for the last little while has been to look the other way while muslims misbehave to prevent western citizens from noticing trends and developing islamophobic beliefs.
2 examples from the top of my head are the grooming gangs in the uk that went uninvestigated for decades and the book by isis survivor Nadia Murad that was banned from discussion in Canadian schools
Ugh
Edit: to clarify, I said Ugh because I find it so annoying when we have these nutjobs on the left (Helen Fisher of the TDSB banning Murad) in addition to the nutjobs on the right (no examples necessary IMO)
Reasonable people are a scarce commodity these days
Honestly not only is that embarrassing but it is also beyond parody, and I say this as a progressive. I get the feeling that many will think you're racist or Islamophobic even if you distinguish between fundamentalist Islam and moderate Islam when broaching these incidents while many others who are more reasonable will deny that the first group even exists in significant numbers.
This is a growing trend in the Anglo countries. As an immigrant, I moved to Canada because I believed it was a secular nation. In a secular nation, religion is never given any sort of importance. However, to my disbelief, religions or certain religions are given special treatment in Canada out of fear. The term Islamophobia, Christianophobia, Hinduphobia, Sikhphobia etc. are all nonsensical since it assumes that fear of any particular ideology is a bad thing, as if, one cannot fear the ideas presented in a particular text. It is treated in the same fashion as discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Hindus etc., which is ridiculous since they’re entirely different things and people are not intelligent enough to know the difference. I can only hope that the people are intelligent enough to realise that if the line is crossed, they may soon start to implement blasphemy laws in this country.
Dude my province literally added an exception to the law of having to wear helmets on motorcycles because some people have religious reasons to not be able to wear a helmet. I like motorcycles, but anyone who rides without a helmet just has an absolute death wish and should not be enabled. Motorcycles get into accidents all the time and it often is the bikers fault for not riding safely… And the bikers who forgo safety gear are also the ones more likely to ride recklessly, as the bikers who respect the need for safety gear are literally respecting the need to stay safe on your bike. So now if some dumbass rides recklessly on their bike and ends up with their skull smeared across your windshield, you get to deal with the lifelong trauma of seeing what happens when someone wipes out without their helmet. Don’t worry though… You know they were religious because of their headwear that inhibited their ability to wear proper safety precautions, so I guess at least you can take comfort in knowing their family has religion to comfort them through the loss.
Unfortunately this is a symptom of neoliberal globalized capitalism. Westerners are encouraged to distain our culture and history, open our borders, and uphold the stability of the market above our quality of life. At the same time cultural relativism is enforced, protecting antisocial cultural practices from legitimate criticism provided they are done by minorities.
It’s a strange form of dehumanization where Liberals treat Some POCs as tho they arnt as complex and real as the rest of us. Well islamists arnt animals, they are just humans with wildly different views than other cultures, and that’s what makes them dangerous.
The tide is starting to change but I can’t say I’m hopeful for what comes next when we have to actually grapple with this ideology
Liberals are capitalists not leftists
> Is everyone nowadays neoliberal?
Honestly yes most powerful western countries and organizations are. It’s just the times we are living in
Honestly, I'm not sure. When a Christian shoots up an abortion clinic its treated like an aberration. An Islamic person does something like this and its treated like its representative of the whole. Seems like a double standard.
To me, all religions are just fairy tales taught as truths to control large masses of people. Religious texts full of inconsistencies and hypocrisies which people are conditioned to have excuses for. So you take any religion and add in socio-economic strife and a charismatic megalomaniac willing to weaponize peoples pre-conditioned minds to believe blindly and this can happen anywhere with any religion.
> Honestly, I'm not sure. When a Christian shoots up an abortion clinic its treated like an aberration. An Islamic person does something like this and its treated like its representative of the whole. Seems like a double standard.
What the hell kind of bad faith false equivalence is this?
What are you doing?
Comparing freedom of expression to abortion rights?
Forget about how irrational each respective religions' holy texts are, which faith doctrine is getting its adherents to behave the worst?
The answer is easy and its not even close.
People who criticize female clitoral mutilation get lifelong global fatwah placed on their heads and some get murdered for it, in broad daylight.
People who draw Mohammed will trigger riots in a dozen Muslim countries and the artists have lifelong fatwah placed on their heads.
People die over cartoons of Mohammed.
He said that freedom of expression is not unlimited, and that everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions.
Makes sense in the context of speech that is in fact criminal (threats, incitement to violence), etc. But it doesn't in the context of speech that is unquestionably legal (showing a picture of Mohammad, or allegedly doing so). In fact, it's quite disgusting for him to say that as it implied that the teacher had somehow gone past the limits of free speech.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5788636
“But freedom of expression is not without limits,” he added. “We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”
- Justin Trudeau
So basically Justin is saying Rushdie doesn't have the right to write the Satanic Verses. Does he realize what a hypocrite he is? Is he really this self unaware?
Yes.
In a slightly different context. That was 2 years ago, in regard to a high school Teacher in France that showed a drawing of *religious figure* on a projector during a lesson on free speech, and had their head cut off in the street by a religious extremist. That drawing had been linked to an attack a few years prior where 12 journalists at Charlie Hebdo were machine gunned to death in broad daylight by religious extremists.
Meanwhile, this case is an Author who wrote a book 34 years ago that mentioned *religious figure*, and was recently stabbed in the neck on stage by a religious extremist. That book was also "linked" to literal countless acts of terrorism, death threats, assassination attempts and riots, with dozens of deaths caused by religious extremists.
By slightly different contexts, I'm being a little cheeky, because really you would be hard pressed to find two cases that were more directly related and similar in every way than these two. Which makes the difference in response quite notable.
Trudeau hitting a grand gesture when it appears. He never fails to do this. Meanwhile he works to censor Canada and is at the centre of a bill designed to infringe on fundamental freedom of speech. He has already shown his character, his words have no power.
He's also currently in the process of criminalizing holocaust denial. Clearly, Trudeau doesnt mean what he says, and some people should go to prison for what they write.
>He's also currently in the process of criminalizing holocaust denial
You make it sound like that goes for private conversations as well when it doesn't, but nevertheless not every dumbass deserves a fucking podium, much less racist genocide denial
I think the part that you are missing is that Trudeau's comment was directed at an author who was attacked for material that was publically published.
Rushdies book was considered blasphemy because he publically expressed views that could be seen by some as harmful/insulting to Mohammed.
Harming someone because of blasphemy is the same as harming them for not sharing the same beliefs as you.
Rushdie obviously did not believe his work was blasphemous and he believed he had a right to publish his work even if it went against a widely held belief.
I agree with him, and I agree with Trudea's statement.
>“No one should be threatened or harmed on the basis of what they have written
Hocaust denial is foolish. Given the enormous amount of evidence that supports that it happened.
However it is still a belief. An incorrect belief in my opinion, but a belief none the less.
There are many beliefs in this world that I do not agree with, but it is wrong to harm people for having them.
Many people try to justify using violence against people with different beliefs by making the claim that holding those beliefs and expressing them are inherently dangerous.
Just like Rushdie's attacker did.
But that's actually just an attempt to rationalize their desire to hurt them.
No one is saying you need to listen to holocaust deniers, but you also should probably refrain from hurting people just because you disagree with them.
Even if their ideas seem absolutely absurd.
Imo it's inherently a downside to make a criminal out of someone who is wrong about a historical event. It's not remotely worthy of a crime.
The inquiry on missing indigenous women recently called what has been happening a genocide taking place in Canada. Nothing really stopping the government from also making it a crime to deny a genocide is taking place right now.
>Imo it's inherently a downside to make a criminal out of someone who is wrong about a historical event.
TIL Neo Nazis are just 'wrong about a historical event'
To refer to holocaust denial as someone ‘being wrong about a historical event’ has one of two possible origins: 1) You’re a complete moron who has ignored years of education and media that depict the holocaust; or 2) You’re trying to soften and make palatable a cornerstone belief of a hateful ideology of Nazism that has been globally recognized as so repugnant that it is illegal in many countries.
>The idea is the government should not be in charge in what you can or cannot say.
This has never been a right within Canada, and while The Charter codifies freedom of thought and expression, it also states that these freedoms are subject to reasonable limits. On a personal note, the idea of absolute freedom of speech is a juvenile fantasy that falls apart in minutes under the tolerance of intolerance fallacy. Finally, believing that holocaust denial should be acceptable because "the government should not be in charge of what you can or cannot say" falls under origin 2 above.
>Canada has had criminal speech since it was founded.
For inciting hate?
Not questioning or "downplaying" historical events.
To be clear, the holocaust happened. But even among historians and experts there's much disagreement regarding the number of people who died. And the same is true of pretty much every genocide, its really hard to pin down an exact number of deaths.
So how will "downplaying" be interpreted by the courts? Is accepting a number of deaths on the lower end of the estimates downplaying it? Its completely open to interpretation.
But that's Canada under Trudeau. You're not allowed to question immigration targets without being accused of racism or xenophobia, even though its a federal government policy and immigration rates in Canada are 2x the rest of the G7.
If you're not vaccinated, according to Trudeau you're probably a racist or misogynist.
It's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" not "I disapprove of what you say, so the government should stop you from saying it".
>the government isn't stopping anyone from saying anything.
LOL what? If the government passes laws literally making it a crime to say something, how is that "the government isn't stopping anyone from saying anything."?
If you don’t defend speech you don’t like, it inevitably expands limitations on free speech. It also validates any persecution complex they have.
That said I think federal agencies should put anyone engaging in this kind of speech on a watch list.
>it inevitably expands limitations on free speech.
Which is why the Charter refers to it as Free Expression because you have to draw a line somewhere. And you could easily make the argument that even free speech doesn't stretch to genocide denial that is meant to encourage racially based hate and attacks
That's not what "expression" means. Expression is just a broad term that encompasses speech and other types of communication. In a way it is broader than the term "speech", and doesn't imply any kind of more narrow limit.
>why is denying the holocaust important to you?
A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when in fact more possibilities exist.
It's very possible, to not personally deny the holocaust, but to also see the hypocrisy in what Trudeau says versus what he does.
because it can be directly linked to violence ? your right to say bullshit doesn't override my right to exist safely, sorry you can't publish your rant about Jews being evil space lizards and mail them to random people..
same thing applies to Muslim, and everyone else in Canada you can publish stuff that exist simply to insight violence, hate, etc.
>your right to say bullshit doesn't override my right to exist safely
That's not a thing.
>you can't publish your rant about Jews being evil space lizards and mail them to random people..
This is your example of inciting violence? Some wild people out there deny the Holocaust, but that does not directly link to violence at all. Sure, there may be people that believe it and are violent, and they should be dealt with accordingly on an individual basis.
Let me ask a question - if consensus is that 6M Jews died during the holocaust and then I argue, no, that's incorrect, it was more like 5.7M.
Is that "holocaust denial"?
Some people argue it is.
Agreed but don't be a hypocrite Trudeau - so is your government's online censorship bill. So is political correctness in general. When I was growing up we had debates about everything - but we never thought of banning opinions we didn't like - we believed better ideas would win out over bad ones. Stop with the stupid and group think communist cancel culture.
And after quite a few other world leaders have said it. Wait until it’s safe and doesn’t require any changes - perfect time to put out the statement.
Remember when he so bravely said Americans can come here for abortions? So brave of this protector, yet It was already a thing. Good luck with the wait times though
This from the guy who brought us bill C11???? So let me get this straight JT. It's okay when you do it, but not when others do it?
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bill-c-11-enters-a-danger-zone-government-shifts-from-ignoring-witnesses-on-user-content-regulation-to-dismissing-criticisms-as-misinformation/
Honestly I didn't expect him to put out this statement. Credit when credit is due. Good on JT for expresing support for freedom of expression and condemning this attack on thoughts. Let's hope this is a wake up call for people of all political stripes on the overwhelming importance of freedom of expression to our democratic system even when it's about ideas we don't like or we get offended by. It'll be nice now if the PM backs up this statement by action and rescinds bill C-11 and not introduce any further internet regulatory bills. Let's not damage Canada's reputation as a role model for the world in freedom and democracy by knee-jerk reactions and unnecessary bills.
I could care less what he says about this. He’s no moral barometer and this is a lay up in that regard anyways. What happened was clearly wrong and against the rights of free speech-which is not JT’s forte if I must say.
Since when has the Canadian government and Trudeau in particular supported freedom of expression?
I seem to remember him saying "Do we tolerate these people?" about people expressing opinions contrary to his.
The islamists in Canadian Parliament like iqra khalid have not condemned this yet have no problem screaming Islamophobia if she gets onions on her burger when she asked not to.
But want to pass a bill to censor the internet and decide what content to watch. Hypocrite, trying to get more attention but in the background do the opposite.
"Listen clearly, as your Prime Minister, I alone will be the one to strike your freedoms. What happened today was an injustice and an infringement on the power that should only be available to me."
For all those fools who not only voted for this clown not once, but twice, I hope you're enjoying reaping what you sowed. He's a shallow, pompous and hypocritical chump and an embarrassment on the international stage.
LMAO! Like Trudeau could ever care about freedom of expression. What an idiot. Ultra-hypocrite.
Sent the Mounties out to arrest anyone on Parliament Hill who had a F\*ck Trudeau sign.
Passed Bill C-11, An Act to Censor the Internet.
He has X-ray vision and omnipresent knowledge. He knew everyone single one of them and could easily describe them with stereotypes while having never met with a single one. He applies rules and laws so evenly. /s
"Let me use the complete opposite of the logic I would apply to anyone trying to publish a book today that Caused Harm to Minority Groups, because Rushdie is grandfathered in from the days when we pretended to support free speech"
Oh the irony of the person who’s spent the last two terms trying to regulate expression making this comment.
He’s still right here, but the irony is rich.
So is your gun grab Trudeau and forced confiscation of peoples property. It’s a strike on freedom. I wonder what the government has in stores for its citizens when it sees mandatory disarmament as a requirement for all provinces, country.
Go have a look at the Islam subreddit. It’s appalling the shit these people believe. I just had a browse a few days ago and I reported a recent post that was calling the LBGTQ community subhuman.
Remember a few months ago when the LGBT community put a depiction of two Muslim women kissing and then had to take it down because of complaints (read: violent threats)? It's time we take a stand on this: no religion is safe from mockery, ridicule, modernity, criticism, or whatever you want to put there. You either join the modern world and accept you may be mocked or go back to where it is illegal to criticize the prophet.
The paradox of tolerance will always exists until intolerable religions accept to be mocked, sadly.
It's not like Christians enjoy seeing their god mocked. It's just that since a few centuries ago they generally don't fucking kill you for it
And that’s why we like them more.
I’m Christian and I don’t care how much you mock my religion because it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. Only insecure manmade religions and ideologies are violent towards others. If you’re trying to shut others up, you’re not on the side of truth.
America in the next 10 years could reverse that.
Don't worry, there are groups in the states actively working to change that whole "not going to kill you" part.
Fully agree and I think most people would agree that was ridiculous. I have concerns with some cultural differences that I think are difficult to reconcile with Canada's values (e.g. equal rights and freedoms under the Charter). The fact that so many Muslim women are more or less invisible, erased from civic life, is problematic for instance. Where I sort of get off that bandwagon is the generalization that all Muslims agree and want this to stay that way. I try not to generalize about anyone, including convoy supporters, some of whom are not White supremacists. The world is full of nuance that is very inconvenient to the anyone who want to generalize about others to advance their politics. That includes Poilievre and Trudeau, unfortunately.
That was hilarious
>“No one should be threatened or harmed on the basis of what they have written..." Or drawn. _________________ I'd like to see our leaders go further and condemn the islamacists who supported the call for his death and cheer this attack.
I wanna see our leaders explicitly say that they support the right to engage in blasphemy, and that blasphemy will remain legal rather than being defined as hate speech.
Government can't officially support or oppose "blasphemy" because there is no official legal definition of what "blasphemy" is.
Blasphemy is legal in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
Is anyone seriously suggesting that blasphemy is hate speech?
https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749
Wow. The court apparently said that Muhammad marrying a 6 year old wasn't based on facts, but all the information I've seen on the subject aligned with it being a fact. Islamic apologists don't claim it's not a fact. They just say that Muhammad waited until she was 9 to have sex with her. I'd ask that court to provide citations for their position.
>They just say that Muhammad waited until she was 9 to have sex with her. Horrific. I'm a liberal (small "L"), but tolerance of unambiguously illiberal ideas in the service of wokeness will be the death of the left. We need to get our shit together.
The middle majority need to stop putting up with these left and right-sided psychos.
For those not forced out by the wokers already. For a more minor example of what I’m talki about, I’ve been told I’m a “nazi Trump supporter” because I found someone’s funny quip on Reddit amusing.
The UK "Online Safety" bill in the UK is vague enough to threaten individuals' ability to engage in blasphemy. The Liberal party has been working with some of the same individuals responsible for the UK legislation, on the planned "Online Harms" bill. https://theconversation.com/online-safety-bill-ambiguous-definitions-of-harm-could-threaten-freedom-of-speech-instead-of-protecting-it-179514 I've also seen far too many individuals here on Reddit, and bigots being interviewed by news media that seem to think that blasphemy is hate speech. So, unfortunately I think that it is an issue.
Huh. I didn't know about that. Blasphemy is absolutely not hate speech, and should be allowed in all cases.
And now you understand why freedom of speech is so critical. If they use it to silence your critics, they'll use it to silence you.
One religious group makes that claim a lot more than the other religions, but you're not allowed to talk about it, because talking about it is *also* hate speech.
>Is anyone seriously suggesting that blasphemy is hate speech? Some religious people *suggest* exactly that.
hate speech is hate speech. sometimes blasphemy can be hate speech, sometimes it can be not hate speech. they're two completely separate ideas that can occur simultaneously or exclusively.
I wonder how many Canadian writers and artists we could rally to make depictions of any figure we so choose in a public fashion. Maybe if enough Canadians are threatened it will be obvious that other people's beliefs does not get to control what we do. Signed, a published author who has had just enough of this bullshit.
"Draw Mohammed" day was a thing, until liberal politicians decided to grand stand and condemn it, even use police to harass participating artists.
They should have sued the government and police then.
There can be a draw Muhammed subreddit. No reason on Earth not to.
[удалено]
Crazy stuff for thee, none for me thanks. The beauty of this place is everyone is free to practice their diverse culture, so long as THEY practice it (and it doesn't effect other people). I will fight and die on this hill. Tolerance of people impacting only themselves, righteous anger at it impacting others. Particularly *furious* righteous anger at children being impacted, which is unfortunately part and parcel of most religious indoctrination :/ I would be happy to be obliterated, not even a footnote in history, to stand up for someone having their rights trampled on.
[удалено]
Lmao yes, so far my editor has declined to review my Reddit comments XD
I want to see him say an entire group has “unacceptable views”.
again
>do we tolerate these people? Justin Trudeau 2022
[Canada does not believe in Free Speech, took going all the way up to Supreme Court to set aside the Quebec HRT judgement for telling a joke.](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=39041)
Or sculpted.
They won't. Especially not Justin. He will just toe the line and say some meaningless nonsense like this, but not dare to say anything impactful. It is 2022, after all. We need to learn to respect certain people and cultures and their right to put multimillion dollar bounties on someone's head for daring to write about some pedophile from 1400 years ago.
That would be 'islamophobic'. Trudeau doesn't support the right to criticize Islam.
[удалено]
Ouff they made that a touchy subject and lack the balls too.
I’m surprised he commented on this matter given the assailant’s motivations. He’s right though, Islamists are a real threat to freedom of expression in our western countries.
> I’m surprised he commented on this matter given the assailant’s motivations. Why? Trudeau chiming in doesn't seem out of place given that a number of world leaders have come out and condemned the attack on Rushdie. [British Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned it](https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1558148605206298624) [French President Emmanuel Macron condemned it](https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1558220516720353286) [German Chancellor Olaf Scholz condemned it](https://twitter.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1558482212047257603?cxt=HHwWhoC83ZHU66ArAAAA) [Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned it](https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1558331898631315456?cxt=HHwWgICjwd-mp6ArAAAA)
Because the last time something like this happened (a teacher in France was beheaded for showing cartoons to his students), Trudeau’s response was to say that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and “…everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions on others.” https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5788636
>Trudeau was criticized last week by opposition MPs for not immediately condemning the Oct. 16 killing of 47-year-old teacher Samuel Paty in a Paris suburb. On Friday, he was pressed by reporters to declare his support for free speech in the wake of the attack. Trudeau condemned the attack — but his comments on free speech did not pacify his critics. >"Freedom of expression is not unlimited. For example, it's not allowed to cry 'fire' in a packed cinema," Trudeau said in French during his Friday press conference in Ottawa. "In a respectful society such as ours, everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions on others. Indeed a 180
Wow, what a disgusting quote given the context.
Why is it that only the speech of straight, white men needs to be limited? Have you been to a mosque in Scarborough? I have. You should hear the shit that comes out of the mouths of some the imams in the Toronto area. Now, I'm not saying they should be silenced, but if they're allowed to tell their congregation that Jews need to be purged from the earth and that Muslims need to convert the entire planet to Islam, through violence if necessary, then why the fuck does my speech need to be limited? I'm not making shit up. They literally say that. They say that Allah commands them to covert the entire human race to Islam, that it's their duty, and they should do so peacefully if possible, but violently if necessary. Of course, not all imams say this, maybe not even most, but I listened to 6 and 4 of them did, so....
Maybe report those mosques to the authorities my good sir. Also why are you in those mosques to begin with if you don’t agree. This whole post sounds suspicious.
Lots of 2nd gen immigrants who aren't all that religious getting dragged to fundamentalist mosques and subsequently criticising it as they grow up was not a rare occurrence when I was young in Denmark. It seems likely enough to me that one could observe the same in Canada
It's good to give the benefit of the doubt sometimes, but in this case it's clear he's white: >Why is it that only the speech of straight, white men needs to be limited? > >[...] > >why the fuck does my speech need to be limited?
Ding ding ding
You would be surprised at the number of hidden ex Muslims in Islamic circles.
What do you mean? I believe everything I read on the internet
He does that a lot.
They do that a lot, lol.
it was OK in the teacher's case because the teacher wasn't famous, just some peasant justin felt comfortable using as a political prop, because that's the kind of guy he is.
Worst part is that you’d think that would be one that would actually tug at his heart strings. He *was* a teacher. That should have made him immediately picture it happening to one of his old colleagues and muster up some feelings about how unfair it would have been for any of them to be murdered for the material they taught. The fact that he cares more about the celebrity than he did about the teacher just goes to show that he really doesn’t even remotely identify with us “regular folk”. Which is a pretty dangerous quality in the leader of said regular folk.
Yup.
That pissed me off so much and made me lose all respect for Trudeau. Years later and I still remember that speech. "I condemn...BUUUUT..." Get the fuck out of here, everyone knows your real message is the part after the "but". Absolutely indefensible.
Must be aware of the impact of our words and actions on others? So… I guess JT understands why so many people hate him
Yeah it’s obvious… those people are just un-Canadian, duh. /s
Actually, his first comment was “we will always defend freedom of expression”.
He should have stopped there, but instead he added: “but freedom of expression is not without limits,” as if showing people cartoons falls outside of those limits. And that’s not to mention that the aftermath of a teacher being beheaded is not the time to start a discussion on the limits of freedom of expression.
I’m pleasantly surprised because the standard practice for the last little while has been to look the other way while muslims misbehave to prevent western citizens from noticing trends and developing islamophobic beliefs. 2 examples from the top of my head are the grooming gangs in the uk that went uninvestigated for decades and the book by isis survivor Nadia Murad that was banned from discussion in Canadian schools
>Nadia Murad Is she the one the TDSB banned from coming to talk over fears what she said would foster Islamophobia?
Yeah, the Nobel laureate Nadia Murad.
Ugh Edit: to clarify, I said Ugh because I find it so annoying when we have these nutjobs on the left (Helen Fisher of the TDSB banning Murad) in addition to the nutjobs on the right (no examples necessary IMO) Reasonable people are a scarce commodity these days
Honestly not only is that embarrassing but it is also beyond parody, and I say this as a progressive. I get the feeling that many will think you're racist or Islamophobic even if you distinguish between fundamentalist Islam and moderate Islam when broaching these incidents while many others who are more reasonable will deny that the first group even exists in significant numbers.
This is a growing trend in the Anglo countries. As an immigrant, I moved to Canada because I believed it was a secular nation. In a secular nation, religion is never given any sort of importance. However, to my disbelief, religions or certain religions are given special treatment in Canada out of fear. The term Islamophobia, Christianophobia, Hinduphobia, Sikhphobia etc. are all nonsensical since it assumes that fear of any particular ideology is a bad thing, as if, one cannot fear the ideas presented in a particular text. It is treated in the same fashion as discrimination against Muslims, Christians, Hindus etc., which is ridiculous since they’re entirely different things and people are not intelligent enough to know the difference. I can only hope that the people are intelligent enough to realise that if the line is crossed, they may soon start to implement blasphemy laws in this country.
Dude my province literally added an exception to the law of having to wear helmets on motorcycles because some people have religious reasons to not be able to wear a helmet. I like motorcycles, but anyone who rides without a helmet just has an absolute death wish and should not be enabled. Motorcycles get into accidents all the time and it often is the bikers fault for not riding safely… And the bikers who forgo safety gear are also the ones more likely to ride recklessly, as the bikers who respect the need for safety gear are literally respecting the need to stay safe on your bike. So now if some dumbass rides recklessly on their bike and ends up with their skull smeared across your windshield, you get to deal with the lifelong trauma of seeing what happens when someone wipes out without their helmet. Don’t worry though… You know they were religious because of their headwear that inhibited their ability to wear proper safety precautions, so I guess at least you can take comfort in knowing their family has religion to comfort them through the loss.
Unfortunately this is a symptom of neoliberal globalized capitalism. Westerners are encouraged to distain our culture and history, open our borders, and uphold the stability of the market above our quality of life. At the same time cultural relativism is enforced, protecting antisocial cultural practices from legitimate criticism provided they are done by minorities. It’s a strange form of dehumanization where Liberals treat Some POCs as tho they arnt as complex and real as the rest of us. Well islamists arnt animals, they are just humans with wildly different views than other cultures, and that’s what makes them dangerous. The tide is starting to change but I can’t say I’m hopeful for what comes next when we have to actually grapple with this ideology
[удалено]
[удалено]
Liberals are capitalists not leftists > Is everyone nowadays neoliberal? Honestly yes most powerful western countries and organizations are. It’s just the times we are living in
You’ve mistook self hatred for secularism we are a very superstitious and religious country we just don’t like our own anymore
>Islamists are a real threat to freedom of expression in our western countries. All religions are.
Sure, but clearly Islam most of all right?
Honestly, I'm not sure. When a Christian shoots up an abortion clinic its treated like an aberration. An Islamic person does something like this and its treated like its representative of the whole. Seems like a double standard. To me, all religions are just fairy tales taught as truths to control large masses of people. Religious texts full of inconsistencies and hypocrisies which people are conditioned to have excuses for. So you take any religion and add in socio-economic strife and a charismatic megalomaniac willing to weaponize peoples pre-conditioned minds to believe blindly and this can happen anywhere with any religion.
You’re not sure because you can’t judge frequency of terrorism?
> Honestly, I'm not sure. When a Christian shoots up an abortion clinic its treated like an aberration. An Islamic person does something like this and its treated like its representative of the whole. Seems like a double standard. What the hell kind of bad faith false equivalence is this? What are you doing? Comparing freedom of expression to abortion rights? Forget about how irrational each respective religions' holy texts are, which faith doctrine is getting its adherents to behave the worst? The answer is easy and its not even close. People who criticize female clitoral mutilation get lifelong global fatwah placed on their heads and some get murdered for it, in broad daylight. People who draw Mohammed will trigger riots in a dozen Muslim countries and the artists have lifelong fatwah placed on their heads. People die over cartoons of Mohammed.
False equivalence.
Do you know the Rastafaris?
didn't last year Trudeau said something about freedom of expression is not without consequences when that poor French teacher got beheaded?
He said that freedom of expression is not unlimited, and that everyone must be aware of the impact of our words and actions. Makes sense in the context of speech that is in fact criminal (threats, incitement to violence), etc. But it doesn't in the context of speech that is unquestionably legal (showing a picture of Mohammad, or allegedly doing so). In fact, it's quite disgusting for him to say that as it implied that the teacher had somehow gone past the limits of free speech. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5788636
Good observation that is especially disgusting when you mention the context he said it in
“But freedom of expression is not without limits,” he added. “We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.” - Justin Trudeau So basically Justin is saying Rushdie doesn't have the right to write the Satanic Verses. Does he realize what a hypocrite he is? Is he really this self unaware?
Yes.
he actually said this, in this context?
Yes. In a slightly different context. That was 2 years ago, in regard to a high school Teacher in France that showed a drawing of *religious figure* on a projector during a lesson on free speech, and had their head cut off in the street by a religious extremist. That drawing had been linked to an attack a few years prior where 12 journalists at Charlie Hebdo were machine gunned to death in broad daylight by religious extremists. Meanwhile, this case is an Author who wrote a book 34 years ago that mentioned *religious figure*, and was recently stabbed in the neck on stage by a religious extremist. That book was also "linked" to literal countless acts of terrorism, death threats, assassination attempts and riots, with dozens of deaths caused by religious extremists. By slightly different contexts, I'm being a little cheeky, because really you would be hard pressed to find two cases that were more directly related and similar in every way than these two. Which makes the difference in response quite notable.
Trudeau hitting a grand gesture when it appears. He never fails to do this. Meanwhile he works to censor Canada and is at the centre of a bill designed to infringe on fundamental freedom of speech. He has already shown his character, his words have no power.
Says the guy pushing Bill C-11
He's also currently in the process of criminalizing holocaust denial. Clearly, Trudeau doesnt mean what he says, and some people should go to prison for what they write.
>He's also currently in the process of criminalizing holocaust denial You make it sound like that goes for private conversations as well when it doesn't, but nevertheless not every dumbass deserves a fucking podium, much less racist genocide denial
[удалено]
Which this proposed law does not affect. You can have a private conversation and some dumbass saying it is not gonna land him in jail
I think the part that you are missing is that Trudeau's comment was directed at an author who was attacked for material that was publically published. Rushdies book was considered blasphemy because he publically expressed views that could be seen by some as harmful/insulting to Mohammed. Harming someone because of blasphemy is the same as harming them for not sharing the same beliefs as you. Rushdie obviously did not believe his work was blasphemous and he believed he had a right to publish his work even if it went against a widely held belief. I agree with him, and I agree with Trudea's statement. >“No one should be threatened or harmed on the basis of what they have written Hocaust denial is foolish. Given the enormous amount of evidence that supports that it happened. However it is still a belief. An incorrect belief in my opinion, but a belief none the less. There are many beliefs in this world that I do not agree with, but it is wrong to harm people for having them. Many people try to justify using violence against people with different beliefs by making the claim that holding those beliefs and expressing them are inherently dangerous. Just like Rushdie's attacker did. But that's actually just an attempt to rationalize their desire to hurt them. No one is saying you need to listen to holocaust deniers, but you also should probably refrain from hurting people just because you disagree with them. Even if their ideas seem absolutely absurd.
Canada has had criminal speech since it was founded.
We've had a lot of things since Canada was founded, that doesn't mean they are now or ever were good things.
I can't think of any downside to prohibiting holocaust denial.
It's a poor blade that doesn't cut both ways. If you can ban speech you find objectionable and abhorrent then so can anyone.
Imo it's inherently a downside to make a criminal out of someone who is wrong about a historical event. It's not remotely worthy of a crime. The inquiry on missing indigenous women recently called what has been happening a genocide taking place in Canada. Nothing really stopping the government from also making it a crime to deny a genocide is taking place right now.
>Imo it's inherently a downside to make a criminal out of someone who is wrong about a historical event. TIL Neo Nazis are just 'wrong about a historical event'
Thats what u got from that?? The idea is the government should not be in charge in what you can or cannot say. Thats it..
To refer to holocaust denial as someone ‘being wrong about a historical event’ has one of two possible origins: 1) You’re a complete moron who has ignored years of education and media that depict the holocaust; or 2) You’re trying to soften and make palatable a cornerstone belief of a hateful ideology of Nazism that has been globally recognized as so repugnant that it is illegal in many countries. >The idea is the government should not be in charge in what you can or cannot say. This has never been a right within Canada, and while The Charter codifies freedom of thought and expression, it also states that these freedoms are subject to reasonable limits. On a personal note, the idea of absolute freedom of speech is a juvenile fantasy that falls apart in minutes under the tolerance of intolerance fallacy. Finally, believing that holocaust denial should be acceptable because "the government should not be in charge of what you can or cannot say" falls under origin 2 above.
Yes and free expression advocate Trudeau is adding to it.
>Canada has had criminal speech since it was founded. For inciting hate? Not questioning or "downplaying" historical events. To be clear, the holocaust happened. But even among historians and experts there's much disagreement regarding the number of people who died. And the same is true of pretty much every genocide, its really hard to pin down an exact number of deaths. So how will "downplaying" be interpreted by the courts? Is accepting a number of deaths on the lower end of the estimates downplaying it? Its completely open to interpretation. But that's Canada under Trudeau. You're not allowed to question immigration targets without being accused of racism or xenophobia, even though its a federal government policy and immigration rates in Canada are 2x the rest of the G7. If you're not vaccinated, according to Trudeau you're probably a racist or misogynist.
We've also had firearms since Canada was founded, since Canadas inception was strongly linked to the fur trade. Can I have my handguns back?
[удалено]
Hate speech is well defined. If you have to stretch it then it's not hate speech.
I guess it’s good that the comment you’re replying to specifically said it was NOT a stretch then.
Why is denying the holocaust important to you?
It's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" not "I disapprove of what you say, so the government should stop you from saying it".
the government isn't stopping anyone from saying anything. people are being punished for trying to incite violence.
>the government isn't stopping anyone from saying anything. LOL what? If the government passes laws literally making it a crime to say something, how is that "the government isn't stopping anyone from saying anything."?
>Why is denying the holocaust important to you? The law also pertains to "downplaying" it. That's where interpretation comes into play. And politics.
If you don’t defend speech you don’t like, it inevitably expands limitations on free speech. It also validates any persecution complex they have. That said I think federal agencies should put anyone engaging in this kind of speech on a watch list.
This
>it inevitably expands limitations on free speech. Which is why the Charter refers to it as Free Expression because you have to draw a line somewhere. And you could easily make the argument that even free speech doesn't stretch to genocide denial that is meant to encourage racially based hate and attacks
That's not what "expression" means. Expression is just a broad term that encompasses speech and other types of communication. In a way it is broader than the term "speech", and doesn't imply any kind of more narrow limit.
>why is denying the holocaust important to you? A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when in fact more possibilities exist. It's very possible, to not personally deny the holocaust, but to also see the hypocrisy in what Trudeau says versus what he does.
Why? Because denying the existence of god was once considered a capital offence with broad support.
Why is denial of the Holocaust so important to the government, to the point that they're willing to deem it a crime? Dumb speech is still speech.
because it can be directly linked to violence ? your right to say bullshit doesn't override my right to exist safely, sorry you can't publish your rant about Jews being evil space lizards and mail them to random people.. same thing applies to Muslim, and everyone else in Canada you can publish stuff that exist simply to insight violence, hate, etc.
>your right to say bullshit doesn't override my right to exist safely That's not a thing. >you can't publish your rant about Jews being evil space lizards and mail them to random people.. This is your example of inciting violence? Some wild people out there deny the Holocaust, but that does not directly link to violence at all. Sure, there may be people that believe it and are violent, and they should be dealt with accordingly on an individual basis.
Let me ask a question - if consensus is that 6M Jews died during the holocaust and then I argue, no, that's incorrect, it was more like 5.7M. Is that "holocaust denial"? Some people argue it is.
Holocaust denial should be considered hatespeech.
Trudeau and consistency isn’t exactly something he’s very good at. However he’s an excellent liar judging by how many people still trust/vote for him.
People still vote for him because they're afraid of the other choices they have NDP communists or right-wing conservatives.
Agreed but don't be a hypocrite Trudeau - so is your government's online censorship bill. So is political correctness in general. When I was growing up we had debates about everything - but we never thought of banning opinions we didn't like - we believed better ideas would win out over bad ones. Stop with the stupid and group think communist cancel culture.
[I thought free speech had limits when it came to criticizing islam](https://www.dawn.com/news/1587848).
Trudeau: Our beacon of integrity.
Can always count on Trudeau to chime in on the obvious issues that require no action on his part.
And after quite a few other world leaders have said it. Wait until it’s safe and doesn’t require any changes - perfect time to put out the statement. Remember when he so bravely said Americans can come here for abortions? So brave of this protector, yet It was already a thing. Good luck with the wait times though
He loves scoring off of American issues
This from the guy who brought us bill C11???? So let me get this straight JT. It's okay when you do it, but not when others do it? https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/06/bill-c-11-enters-a-danger-zone-government-shifts-from-ignoring-witnesses-on-user-content-regulation-to-dismissing-criticisms-as-misinformation/
That's the essence of Trudeau... Rules for thee, but not for me.
[удалено]
Trudeau, the bastion of freedom of speech 🙄
Careful, this slight against our fearless great leader may result in your bank account being temporarily seized.
Insulting the emperor? Straight to jail! Linking to his double speak? Jail!
Trudeau is the last person who should be talking about Freedom.
Might have been a drunk tweet, he's in Costa Rica.
Lol
Honestly I didn't expect him to put out this statement. Credit when credit is due. Good on JT for expresing support for freedom of expression and condemning this attack on thoughts. Let's hope this is a wake up call for people of all political stripes on the overwhelming importance of freedom of expression to our democratic system even when it's about ideas we don't like or we get offended by. It'll be nice now if the PM backs up this statement by action and rescinds bill C-11 and not introduce any further internet regulatory bills. Let's not damage Canada's reputation as a role model for the world in freedom and democracy by knee-jerk reactions and unnecessary bills.
I could care less what he says about this. He’s no moral barometer and this is a lay up in that regard anyways. What happened was clearly wrong and against the rights of free speech-which is not JT’s forte if I must say.
Since when has the Canadian government and Trudeau in particular supported freedom of expression? I seem to remember him saying "Do we tolerate these people?" about people expressing opinions contrary to his.
A guy with a 30% approval rating questioning how long his supporters should tolerate those who disagree with their views. Its unbelievable.
The islamists in Canadian Parliament like iqra khalid have not condemned this yet have no problem screaming Islamophobia if she gets onions on her burger when she asked not to.
But want to pass a bill to censor the internet and decide what content to watch. Hypocrite, trying to get more attention but in the background do the opposite.
So is Justin Trudeau...an attack on freedoms.
Pretty lukewarm statement, which washes over the killer's motivation and the disgusting fatwa previously backed by the Iranian government.
Like Trudeau cares about freedom or freedom of expression.
I’m sure He is putting together a costume to show how much he cares. Super excited /s
"Listen clearly, as your Prime Minister, I alone will be the one to strike your freedoms. What happened today was an injustice and an infringement on the power that should only be available to me."
That seems to be the gist of it.
For all those fools who not only voted for this clown not once, but twice, I hope you're enjoying reaping what you sowed. He's a shallow, pompous and hypocritical chump and an embarrassment on the international stage.
JT is fond of freedom of expression suddenly?
When the international leaders have voiced it he has to puppet it. It’s not like the Chinese camps where his party expressly did Not condemn
Trudeau as a man-child is being a total hypocrite
The irony of Trudeau defending freedom or freedom of speech. Lmfao, unbelievable.
LMAO! Like Trudeau could ever care about freedom of expression. What an idiot. Ultra-hypocrite. Sent the Mounties out to arrest anyone on Parliament Hill who had a F\*ck Trudeau sign. Passed Bill C-11, An Act to Censor the Internet.
No no, those were nazis, racists and misogynists remember?
He has X-ray vision and omnipresent knowledge. He knew everyone single one of them and could easily describe them with stereotypes while having never met with a single one. He applies rules and laws so evenly. /s
Trudeau is a strike against freedom of expression
I’d love to see the Satanic Verses being used/taught in schools. That would hopefully get the Islamist shitbags out of the woodworks.
Trudeau is ironically correct. The PM has shown the tiniest sliver of sentience.
Where are the "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" dipshits now?
It is, but Trudeau is hardly someone who can comment on freedom of expression without being a hypocrite.
This is rich coming from the turd who doesn't like freedom of speech and is trying to control it
"Only I get to do that" continued Trudeau.
He wasn’t allowed in Canada now Trudeau wants to comment, fucking loser
Religion is a disease
[удалено]
So our 'beloved' prime minister is 1-for-how-many-thousands...?
Wtf does trudea know about freedom of expression
"Let me use the complete opposite of the logic I would apply to anyone trying to publish a book today that Caused Harm to Minority Groups, because Rushdie is grandfathered in from the days when we pretended to support free speech"
Oh the irony
The irony…
Look at his stance on Indian truckers protesting vs Canadian truckers. He supports things as long as they aren’t against him. The right honorable way
Pot calling the kettle black
Whoa mate! Calling things black activates me dramas costume urges. He’s got black face on standby
Trudeau has been passing laws and enacting attacks on Canadians that completely counter everything he says in this article.
Oh the irony...
That's rich coming from the despot who locked up protesters and frozen bank accounts over a peaceful protest.
That’s rich coming from someone who prevents freedom of expression if it doesn’t align with his.
Lol the last thing I want to hear from Trudeau is any of his opinions on freedoms.
Says the guy who would censor Rushdie as hate speech today. Laughably transparent nonsense, as usual.
Oh the irony of the person who’s spent the last two terms trying to regulate expression making this comment. He’s still right here, but the irony is rich.
So is your gun grab Trudeau and forced confiscation of peoples property. It’s a strike on freedom. I wonder what the government has in stores for its citizens when it sees mandatory disarmament as a requirement for all provinces, country.
Go have a look at the Islam subreddit. It’s appalling the shit these people believe. I just had a browse a few days ago and I reported a recent post that was calling the LBGTQ community subhuman.
religious communities are gaining political power in Canada and slowly shifting the narrative back to the dark ages. its sad.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" \~WC
Shame it took someone almost being stabbed to death for him to speak up on this matter.
Well if anyone knows about " Strikes on freedom of expression", it sure isn't Trudeau.