Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
But you are referring to American laws when we’re talking about Canadian laws.
Yes, it’s not 100% accurate parallel, just the easiest one I could come up with.
Sometimes bad laws exist for a long assed time and hurt a lot of people.
But Canada has much different ways to deal with laws than the States.
That’s why I don’t bring up Cambodia’s laws and law making when I’m talking about England, it would make as much sense as what you just did.
I think it still generally applies, and the American legal system and Canadian one have some similarities, though I’m not really qualified to say that. Seems needlessly pedantic, but if you want a Canadian example, how’s the residential schools? Women’s rights? According to Canadian law, women didn’t qualify as persons until 1929.
There are plenty of Canadian examples of poor laws existing for far too long a timeframe.
I’m not quite sure how to read this comment of yours, are you saying the closure of residential school and women getting rights are examples of bad laws that have stuck around?
Yes.
How long were women not considered “persons” before it was corrected?
We’re talking about laws that have changed for the worse and I don’t think women getting rights or residential schools closing down are examples of that.
I’d go as far saying that those changes are very good things and if that’s the examples you want to use here I’m confused.
You’re really behind the curve on this one.
We’re talking about laws that were bad but existed for a long time. I can’t bring myself to care anymore about your straw-man misinterpretations.
Okay, thanks for telling me.