Britnannya, where you can be arrested for mean tweets and hilarious pug videos, but the police don't have the time or inclination to stop the grooming gangs preying on young girls. Seriously no thread on this? This place needs an enema.
You're right, I should've provided a link to how pathetic Britain is on free speech as well. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nd-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
Hilarious pug videos? Are you telling the Jewish people on this board that training a dog to conspire in a “gas the Jews/heil Hitler” video is okay and that it is “hilarious”? Anyhow, as I said in another thread recently, we Britons aren’t cowards like you lot. We will have a discussion about the problem and try and deal with it. We won’t offer up bullshit about thoughts and prayer, engage in partisan bickering like two year olds or call for more knives to deal with knives.
As a Canadian, I pay people to do that for me. Section 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada
"Someone got shot." "Take all the guns away!" "Someone got stabbed." "Take all the knives away!" "Someone said something mean on the internet." "Arrest people who say mean things!" Yeah, great discussion you lot have going on over there.
I said "objectively." The standard in evidence above is the "I know it when I see it" standard, which is no standard at all.
Oh, and by the way evenflow, despite your claims we’re surpressing free speech, our political discourse is far more developed than yours will ever be. The very fact that we have programs on TV where the public regularly challenge politicians, where we can discuss tough questions of religion, class and status...where we can say “here’s a problem, let’s try and address it” shows that our partisanship is not remotely as fucked as yours. Where is that in America? Fox and Friends? Lol. People like the thread starter are more interested in taking sad little pot shots at foreign countries than facing up to the complete clusterfuck of a nation they are complicit in creating.
Okay, now I've got more time. What's the standard in America for charging someone with assault? Aggravated assault? Attempted murder? Is it objective?
Honestly, a debate on the floor of Parliament any given day of the week is more entertaining than any debates Congress ever has.
Guess @evenflow didn't know the board has been spitting out double threads recently and thought @shootER was targeting him or something. But seems pretty hair-trigger. Maybe was just looking for a reason to bounce.
Banning all knives might be a bit overboard. It depends on how the ban works. Knives have a utility that is basic and needed in many facets of life that guns don't. I would say if you are going to regulate them it should be on a micro level. Construction and manual labor workers have a reason to carry them around, but you may not want them in court rooms or office jobs. It is really not a line that can be drawn well by government and should probably rely on location and private rules. Knives are not guns and you have to weigh the use of a tool of basic and great utility vs their danger.
