Notorious Neonazi who called for ‘white’ Canada has laptop seized by CBSA

[Deleted]

It was a border stop, therefore neither apply.

Then Canada is a shitty country for people who don't value freedom. I even heard they can charge you for contempt of court if you refuse to divulge your encryption key. What kind of communist shit country does that? Fuck Canada.

[Deleted]

It's canada...totalitarian leftist land


[Infracted]

[Canpinter]

The law in Canada doesn't specify minorities, so yes, it would.

Doesn't the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms specifically allow the law to be applied differently to people if its to correct a disadvantage?

[Octa]

1> BLM isn't a "hate group".
2> No, I'm not denying anyone their right to talk about Hitler.



Did you miss that she wasn't arrested or charged in any way? They're searching her laptop. Charges would only follow if they found stuff like that.

I understand that she wasn't arrested but what were the grounds for searching her laptop? I must have missed it in the article.

[Reek]

1> BLM isn't a "hate group".

Yea, I almost forget black people in America can't be racist or commit hate crimes towards other races.

[Fyersing]

You may want to consider brushing up on laws in other countries before you start declaring what is and isn't legally acceptable in places that aren't the USA. Canada has hate speech laws, the fact that you disagree with them doesn't invalidate them.

The wording of the provided article suggests the defendant is making a moral appeal, not a legal one, which is exactly what my previous point was aimed at. In a literal sense, saying things that people (even lots of people, even a majority of people, even ALL other people) don't agree with is the absolute, fundamental, text-book example of employing freedom of speed -- just because Canada has put in place a few liberally-conceived limitations of what does and doesn't qualify under the umbrella of "free speech" doesn't really change the assertion she's making.

Which says nothing about the legality of what she's done, don't care one way or the other, but if people are going to scoff at her saying things they don't like and then say things like, "bah, and she's calling it free speech... what a stupid b***h", well, then I'm going to chime in and tell them they're imbeciles.

[Lynarii]

The wording of the provided article suggests the defendant is making a moral appeal, not a legal one, which is exactly what my previous point was aimed at. In a literal sense, saying things that people (even lots of people, even a majority of people, even ALL other people) don't agree with is the absolute, fundamental, text-book example of employing freedom of speed -- just because Canada has put in place a few liberally-conceived limitations of what does and doesn't qualify under the umbrella of "free speech" doesn't really change the assertion she's making.

Which says nothing about the legality of what she's done, don't care one way or the other, but if people are going to scoff at her saying things they don't like and then say things like, "bah, and she's calling it free speech... what a stupid b***h", well, then I'm going to chime in and tell them they're imbeciles.

Nowhere in the world has perfect freedom of speech. Even in the US, if you run through a theater shouting 'Fire!', or start making death threats at another person, you're going to get in trouble. Everywhere has limitations, the differences lying primarily in where that line is placed, so it is far more significant to discuss whether something is protected under the free speech laws in the country where it happened than under an absolutist definition that doesn't apply to any real location.

All that being said, you say that 'the defendant is making a moral appeal', except that she's not a defendant. She hasn't been arrested, she hasn't been charged with any crimes, there is no conviction /to/ appeal. Free speech does not, in any way, translate to immunity from being checked by border guards during international travel. They seize things any time they even suspect that there might be something wrong, and then (usually) return it afterwards if they decide they were wrong after all. Her free speech claims in this context have no more merit than if I tried to claim free speech because the border guards seized some jalapeno cheese spread I was bringing home from Wisconsin. And I never even got that back.

[oxymoronic]

Then Canada is a shitty country for people who don't value freedom. I even heard they can charge you for contempt of court if you refuse to divulge your encryption key. What kind of communist shit country does that? Fuck Canada.

most of us have known canada is shady like this. finally others are starting to see it.